Limited budgets. Lots of traffic. Multiple regional actors, including city and suburban officials. A legislative process plus backroom conversations. All of these are involved in developing a proposal for merging Chicago area transit agencies:

The proposal is part of a broader look at transit funding, as the region’s public transit agencies face a combined $730 million budget hole once federal COVID-19 relief funding starts running out, which could be as soon as 2025. Transit agencies have warned failure to plug the financial hole could lead to catastrophic service cuts and fare increases, and the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning was tasked by the Illinois General Assembly with developing recommendations to overhaul transit, which were delivered to lawmakers in December.

The decision to introduce legislation is a signal of how some lawmakers and civic organizations want to proceed. Already, the transit agencies have sought more state funding, while the civic organizations and lawmakers say funding must be linked to changes to the way transit is overseen. But debate about consolidating the transit agencies and funding could prove thorny in Springfield.

Still, merging the transit agencies has garnered some support. The Civic Federation, a business-backed Chicago watchdog group, recently endorsed the idea, and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle also previously expressed her support for the concept…

The proposal set to be introduced this week in Springfield is expected to replace the Regional Transportation Authority, which coordinates financing for the agencies, with a new Metropolitan Mobility Authority. The new agency would oversee the operation of buses, trains and paratransit, rather than having the CTA, Metra and Pace each operate their own services.

The proposal would revamp the number of board members on the new agency and who appoints them. The current system is complex and layered, regional planners have pointed out, with 47 board members across the agencies appointed by 21 elected officials. That has given nearly two dozen state, suburban and city officials varying levels of influence on the transit boards.

There is a lot to be worked out. No one community can address this issue. Even if the big city in a region has a great system, that city does not stand alone as people and business moves throughout the region. Indeed, in many regions, many of the jobs and much of the activity takes place in the suburbs where driving is even more prominent. Thus, I am in favor of this if it can improve transit options, create budget efficiencies, and help the region plan for the future.

One outcome is consistent in postwar era in the United States: we tend to get more roads and increasing traffic. In many regions, there are multiple competing interests regarding transportation. Do suburbanites want mass transit lines? What infrastructure already exists? Who controls the budgets? What political processes do ideas and plans need to work through? In a country devoted to driving, it can be hard to promote alternative options.