Behind the CTA Save
Posted February 3rd, 2008 by Jeff Pinzino
Tags:
In the cage match that resulted in the CTA funding deal in Springfield, one of the facts that got lost in the final reporting is that the final deal (minus the senior citizen freebie) is the same plan that state representative Julie Hamos constructed with community groups after a series of town hall meetings more than a year ago.
Brian Imus is Executive Director of the Illinois Public Interest Research Group (Illinois PIRG), which advocates on behalf of citizens for better transit, consumer protection, and improved health care. (http://www.illinoispirg.org) He was in the room when the transit proposal was hammered out.
"Everybody was talking about how the funding was broken and the agencies needed more money. We brought up that you couldn't just throw more money at it, that you need reform and accountability of the transit agencies."
For those interested, the essentials of the deal are at http://juliehamos.org/PDFs/HB656FACTSHEET_01-23-08.pdf
According to Imus, linking the funding and reform issues was key to passing the bill. "The CTA was fighting for its life, and commuters weren't standing up for it because they hated how it was run. If you wanted to organize and energize people, they needed to know that it'd change the way CTA made decisions."
Despite the fact that the proposal banged around the pinball machine of Illinois politics for months, it came out to be almost exactly what was agreed upon at the earliest meetings. The moral: setting the terms of the debate can be even more powerful than the debate itself.
What are PIRG's terms for the next debate? Here are three:
*More reform - holding transit agencies accountable for money they're spending now
*Increased capital funding - replacing decaying tracks and outdated buses
* Expansion - money to build more lines and buy more buses, as well as service expansion like the Metra reverse commute
Here's Imus' final analysis of the statehouse deal: "It's a victory that prevents transit service from getting worse. Now we need to come up with ways for transit to grow as the region grows and meet the needs of the people who live there."
- Flag as offensive
- jeffpinzino's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Setting the Terms of the Debate
The parallel between how and who sets the terms of the debate about affordable and respectful public transportation and how and who sets the terms of the debate about equitable access to arts education is striking. Solutions built around temporary fiscal patches (provided by state and city government in the case of public transportation, provided by the philanthropic community in the case of arts education) will not be sustainable. We need to invest in a broader decision making process that sets the terms of public policy in all areas of our lives. What do we want our public transportation system to be like in ten years? What kinds of creative education are necessary for all learners in an information age?
The generation of far reaching ideas attracts resources. Temporary fiscal fixes attract political posturing at the public's expense.