By JOYCE E. KUSTRA Illinois Issues' special assignments writer in the Chicago area, she holds a master's degree in journalism.

Clickety click, clackety clack, clickety click, clickety click, clackety clack

The RTA chugs on

SPARKS fly almost every time the four suburban board members of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) clash with the five Chicago members. The nine members of the RTA's board do not often agree on policy matters relating to mass transportation in its jurisdiction: the six northeastern counties of Cook, Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Kane and Will. The suburbanites cry foul every time the Chicago members call for a vote, but are saved from being defeated on every vote by the majority Chicago members since a two-thirds vote is required for budget approval, taxation and certain other major items such as condemnation of public property. At a recent board meeting, threats from the suburban minority were heard after the Chicago contingent chose a city-based firm to perform a routine audit. "How many firms outside the city of Chicago have been retained by the RTA to do audits?" one suburban member asked. The question went unanswered, but the message was clear: the suburbs do not feel that they are well served by the RTA, either in the administration or, more importantly, in the actual services provided by the system. They argue that the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is the only company benefiting from the formation of regional transportation service. Chicago members counter that considering the number of people served and the amount of money each area pumps into the RTA, that is not true. The battle goes all the way back to the days when city dwellers first discovered the greener fields of suburbia, only to find that they needed to get back into the city to work. Years have passed and many industries have moved out of Chicago; now central city commuters are finding it just as difficult to get to their jobs in the suburbs. While RTA officials plan toward a comprehensive, complete transportation system, the day when it will become a reality for the entire region is not close at hand. In the meantime, the arguments are hashed over and over again.

One argument not heard as loudly these days is whether a regional system of transportation is even necessary for northeastern Illinois. Except for a few die-hards in the outlying areas of the region, there is general agreement that a regional approach is necessary if mass transportation is to operate successfully in the area. At a recent meeting of McHenry County Republicans, Gov. James R. Thompson hinted that he might support a move for McHenry County to pull out of the RTA, much to the delight of his partisan audience. When angry responses began to pour in, the governor backed down from the statement.

There is also general agreement that mass transportation can no longer operate without government subsidies. The cost of operating expensive equipment in an era of mushrooming fuel prices makes it impossible for any mass transit carrier to break even on the fares it charges its riders. In fact, the CTA, which carries about 2 million of the 2.5 million daily riders in the region, gets one-third of its operating revenue from the RTA. A final argument favoring regional mass transit comes from the energy shortage and the deteriorating environmental condition. It has become essential for a metropolitan area such as northeastern Illinois not only to provide sufficient mass transportation as an alternative to automobile transportation, but also to attract as many riders as possible for the system.

The division between RTA factions has been there ever since the debate over the enabling legislation took place in Springfield back in 1973: how to divide

16 / November 1977 / Illinois Issues

revenues and subsidies equitably among the CTA, suburban bus lines and commuter rail lines. At that time, all three were in varying stages of financial strife. Individually, the fragmented transportation lines of the pre-RTAera were in no position to secure the kind of financial aid necessary to keep the transit systems going. Collectively, the transportation companies were able to secure additional funding because of the RTA's jurisdictional umbrella.

Genesis of the RTA The RTA was established for several reasons. The most important was a consensus among RTA supporters, as stated by Chicago board member Pas- tora San Juan Cafferty, "Northeastern Illinois is a tightly knit area and the whole area stands or falls together." But several other factors also convinced the RTA proponents that a regional government was the only practical way to reverse the trend of diminishing funds and services. Each year, the General Assembly found itself in the position of considering deficit appropriations to bail out private carriers to keep the trains and buses running. This expensive and time-consuming task was one most of the lawmakers were happy to relinquish. Also, federal funding was contingent on a regional approach to mass transportation, and the federal government required that all six northeastern Illinois counties be included to qualify as an acceptable urbanized region. In northeastern Illinois, the RTA is the only designated recipient of grants from the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) which disburses federal monies to mass transit agencies.

---

The division between RTA factions has been there ever since the debate over the enabling legislation took place in Springfield back in 1973: how to divide revenues and subsidies equitably

---

In 1971 the state's new Constitution became effective and recognized the need to subsidize transportation; Article XIII states that public transportation "is an essential public purpose for which public funds may be expended." That same year, the CTA was experiencing its first deficit year, so Cook County and the city of Chicago each diverted motor fuel tax funds to keep it going. In early 1971, Republican Gov. Richard B. Ogilvie delivered a "Special Message on Transportation" to the General Assembly in which he urged the lawmakers to approve the Transportation Bond Act allowing the use of bonds for capital improvements for public transportation carriers throughout the state. At the same time, he proposed a regional agency to deal with the huge mass transportation network in northeastern Illinois. After the legislature passed the Transportation Bond Act, Ogilvie in 1972 appointed a task force which considered the regional transportation concept and set forth an outline of what alternate forms the RTA might take.

Although various organizational forms were considered for the RTA — from total control over the lines to merely coordinating the transit systems — the final form chosen was that of an umbrella organization. The most important effect of this decision was that the large CTA organization remained intact to operate in much the same way as before. The RTA act does include a provision, however, which would allow the RTA to become the actual operating agency of the CTA. While Chicago board members drag their feet on this issue, their suburban colleagues keep urging action.

Gov. Dan Walker succeeded Ogilvie in 1973, the year the legislature tackled the job of drawing up the Regional Transportation Act. The session came and went with a thorough airing of the proposed RTA but with no action. It was not until Walker, legislative leaders and representatives of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley caucused in November of 1973 that differences were ironed out:

the Regional Transportation Act was passed by the ensuing Third Special Session of the legislature and would become effective in December 1973. Meanwhile, short-term stopgap relief had to be provided to keep the wheels rolling in northeastern Illinois. Some observers feel that theseveral financial crises in transportation were deliberately caused by legislative leaders who held down funding levels in order to bring the RTA to fruition.

Referendum The RTA enabling legislation called for the controversial act to be put before the voters, even though there were some proponents who felt the referendum was unnecessary and unwise. They felt the highly spirited campaign and election would only polarize opinion on the subject rather than appease dissidents;

other RTA backers felt the referendum would help solidify support. The RTA Citizens Committee was formed to sell the idea to the voters, but the committee's efforts were countered by suburban legislators who campaigned against the RTA, The final vote count, listed in table 1, showed overwhelming suburban

Table 1 Unofficial vote count on RTA referendum

County	Support % Oppose %
McHenry	: 2,777 9 27,533 91
Kane	5,865 11 46,187 89
Will	5,995 11 45,298 89
Lake	16,981 25 48,621 75
DuPage	27,224 25 79,821 75
Cook
(outside Chicago)	168,949 41 234,788 59
Cook
(inside Chicago)	456,475 71 189,039 29
Totals	684,266 50.5 671,287 49.5

rejection, but Chicago — the only place where the referendum carried — had such a heavy turnout that its votes pushed the RTA over the top by a mere 13,000-vote margin, and the proposition became law. Court challenges followed, but in the end the vote stood, and regional transportation became a reality for northeastern Illinois.

Provisions of the act The act stipulates that the RTA coordinate transportation planning in the six-county region and have authority to control public transportation service in the area. The act also specifies RTA as the governmental unit entitled to receive state and federal grants and loans and sets its jurisdiction over 250 communities as well as the city of Chicago. While the RTA does not actually control Chicago's CTA operations (the CTA operates under its own board), it does control CTA's purse

November I977 / Illinois Issues / 17

strings to a large extent, providing about one-third of its operating budget.

The RTA Board of Directors has often been more controversial than the actual delivery of mass transit services. The act calls for a nine-member board: four appointed by the mayor of Chicago and approved by the City Council; two appointed by the six suburban members of the Cook County Board; two appointed by the chairmen of the five collar county boards; and one, the chairman, chosen by the other eight members. Originally, the chairman also served as chief administrative officer. However, in 1976 Chairman Milton Pikarsky became the chief target of complaints made by suburban directors, who charged he was a poor administrator and that he acted unfairly toward suburban transit lines. They demanded his resignation. The resulting compromise, in which the suburban members won several concessions, also called for the hiring of a chief operating officer, thus diminishing the chairman's power.

Financing the RTA RTA proponents like to point out that no new taxes were levied to create the RTA; funds were simply diverted from existing revenue sources. But that changed this year. The act originally allowed for revenues to flow into the RTA from the state's Public Transportation Fund. The fund collected its monies from four sources: (1) 3/32 of the state sales tax collected in the six- county region; (2) $14 of each motor vehicle license fee collected in the city of Chicago; (3) a $5 million annual contribution from Chicago and Cook County; (4) federal UMTA funds for both capital improvements and operating purposes. Before the RTA Board of Directors could pass the fiscal year 1978 budget last spring, they approved a fifth source of revenue, a 5 per cent gasoline tax for the six-county region. The flat 5 per cent tax proposed by Chicago members was chosen over a suburban proposal calling for a differential tax, which would have ranged from possibly no levy at all in outlying McHenry County to the maximum allowed of 5 per cent in Chicago. But, several RTA officials argued that a differential tax would be declared unconstitutional, and the time lapse involved in a court struggle would mean the loss of badly needed funds and possibly create a critical deficit. The Chicago measure prevailed. Estimated to generate $70 to $80 million a year, the gas tax was seen by Chicago board members as the only solution to the problem of a $55 million deficit in the $237 million budget for fiscal 1978, especially since the General Assembly had rejected an RTA request for authorization to levy a one-cent sales tax. With the exception of one suburban board member, the gas tax measure failed to receive support from suburban members who argued that the new revenues would simply reinforce already existing inequities. Although the gas tax plan calls for the revenue to be returned to the area from which it comes, suburban members are unimpressed and still fear that suburban revenues will end up subsidizing CTA operations. The lone suburban supporter of the gas tax, Daniel Baldino of Evanston, went along reluctantly after extracting some concessions from the majority, including an extra $5 million for suburban lines and changes in the formula which distributes bond and federal grant money to make distribution more favorable to the suburbs. Baldino also demanded an expiration date for the gas tax of October 1979 so the new tax could be evaluated to see if the RTA commitment to expand suburban service is genuine. A two-thirds majority will be required to extend the tax. New and expanded services will not be an easy promise to keep. Even with the gas tax, some observers estimate that the agency will face another multimillion dollar deficit by 1980. The five-year plan prepared by the RTA indicates that any deficit might be met by fare increases of about 20 percent, or 10 cents on bus and rapid transit lines. The plan indicates that fare increases would be "in keeping with a philosophy of sharing the costs of public transportation between the direct user and the general public," but it is a solution which would run counter to the RTA's goal of stabilizing fare levels. The other alternative to avoid a deficit would mean another trip to Springfield to ask for new taxing authorization, perhaps another try for a one-cent sales tax. The RTA five-year plan is necessarily sketchy and subject to change, but it does show that the RTA's financial woes are far from over. It also raises the question of how new transit lines will ever reach the suburbs in the proportions that are being demanded by commuters and their representatives on the board. Figures indicate that the financial crunch will continue and that new programs will probably be shelved so that existing lines can continue to run. Of the existing lines, studies show that the CTA actually performs much more efficiently than other services in the region. The amount of subsidy per passenger for the CTA is far below that of both commuter railroads and suburban bus lines. However, basing subsidy levels on current ridership naturally

18 / November 1977 / Illinois Issues

favors established systems at the expense of new systems,

Current budget
Of the $237 million operating budget for fiscal 1978, $198 million goes to subsidize transit lines. New services, mostly in the suburbs, are budgeted for nearly $17 million. The rest is for administration, advertising and debt repayment. About 71 per cent of the subsidies, or $141 million, will go to the CTA, which serves Chicago plus 22 suburban communities and carries over 80 per cent of the region's commuters. The CTA subsidy plus the $57 million subsidy for suburban bus lines and commuter railroads represent a 23 per cent increase over last year's budget. A $304 million capital program is anticipated with most of the funds coming in the form of federal grants. About one- third of this amount will go toward the replacement of 300 CTA rapid transit cars, most of which have long outlasted their expected use. New buses and railroad cars plus maintenance are also included in this capital expenditure. This high cost of maintaining and replacing existing equipment and facilities allows little extra for expansion in the capital program.

Conclusion
In its March 1977 Report (majority) to the General Assembly, the Legislative Advisory Committee to the Regional Transportation Authority listed six areas of progress since the RTA's implementation. The first was area involvement, and the committee reported that the RTA now serves 120 of the 251 municipalities in the region and that includes 83 per cent of the population in the six-county area. The implementation of a standardized fare structure in the region was also noted in the report: whereas fares previously varied widely from one carrier to another, a standard 50-cent fare is now charged for all bus and rapid transit trains in Chicago and most Cook County suburbs while 30 cents has become standard for many smaller local bus systems. A universal transfer system is also being implemented to simplify changing from one system to another. The process of standardizing the more expensive commuter train fares is in progress, with a new zone system to determine a passenger's fare which would result in all lines charging the same fare for the same distance traveled.

The committee also pointed to four more accomplishments of the RTA's formative years: (1) reduced fares for the elderly and handicapped; (2) an around- the-clock Travel Information Center in several languages which was a CTA service taken over by the RTA; (3) service agreements with all seven railroad lines serving the region which assures coordinated transportation delivery; and (4) a major program to replace antiquated equipment.

Chicago's expressways have helped to create the burgeoning suburbs which surround the central city. While the expressway system has provided the mobility necessary for the central city resident to move to suburbia, that development in itself has caused its own set of problems: those same suburbanites must get back to their jobs. In northeastern Illinois, the automobile and the expressways on which the automobile is dependent threaten to

(Please turn page)

November 1977 / Illinois Issues / 19

But mass transportation must succeed in the Chicago area, as it must in every other metropolitan area. It must be made available

suffocate the area with polluted air and to strangle it with massive traffic jams. Urban planners and transportation experts agree that the only way to relieve traffic congestion and insure the economic vitality of the city is to move the automobiles off the expressways and the commuters onto the trains and buses of the RTA.

There are a number of political and economic obstacles, however, that lie in the path of an effective public transportation system for the Chicago area. Disgruntled counties want to pull out, a move that some feel would cripple the whole system. The handicapped cry for facilities which would allow them easier access to mass transit, a laudable goal but one with a high price tag. Commuters can't be convinced to leave their cars at home and take the bus, in spite of a flashy media campaign by the RTA. The nine RTA board members seem to agree on little (one recent argument concerned whether six-year-olds were old enough to travel alone). And worst of all, there's never enough money; mass transit just cannot pay for itself.

But mass transportation must succeed in the Chicago area, as it must in every other metropolitan area. It must be made available to as many people as possible and people must be persuaded to ride. To cut air pollution and save energy, there must be less dependence on the automobile. Mass transit offers the only reasonable alternative.

The RTA has come through its formative years with a few scars but no mortal wounds. But there has been no dramatic increase in ridership since 1974 when the agency began operations, and attracting new commuters remains the number one goal. As the suburbs continue to- grow around the political and economic hub of Chicago, a regional transportation plan will become more and more important. The Regional Transportation Authority, created by state law and endorsed by the federal government, is and will continue to be the agency designated to provide that plan. ž

20 / November 1977 / Illinois Issues