Daily Herald opinion: Restructuring, efficiency must be first consideration in solving RTA crisis

A major planning group's recommendations regarding the impending financial crisis facing public transportation in the Chicago area carry a similarly revenue-heavy focus to those in a Regional Transportation Agency draft report last December, but perhaps more than anything, they emphasize two key points:

One, that addressing the combined $730 million shortfall expected by 2026 for the agencies that make up the RTA will require sacrifices from riders but can result in more sustainable services. And, two, that restructuring actions alone won't solve the transit agencies' problems; revenues will have to fit into the picture somewhere.

All true enough. But the directive that lawmakers should operate under when they take on the transportation funding challenge in the coming session should be to impose ideas that squeeze as much out of restructuring as possible before they turn to revenues.

The chances of that weren't exactly promising in responses to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning's suggestions issued last week.

In a report by our Marni Pyke, state Sen. Ramm Villivalam, chairman of the Transportation Committee, acknowledged the difficulties ahead, but seemed to lean most heavily toward the revenues portion of the equation.

"If you speak to legislators across the region ..., they are willing to tackle the tough conversation of revenue. They know we need a reliable, safe, environmentally friendly, equitable transportation system," Villivalam said.

Whatever reassurance such statements have to offer, it also bears emphasizing that lawmakers need to be willing to tackle the even tougher conversation of spending cuts and reorganization. On that side of the ledger, CMAP offered ideas ranging from improving and streamlining services to combining the operations of Metra, Pace and the Chicago Transit Authority into a single centralized superagency.

On the latter option, leaders of the three RTA-component services all were quick to respond that the differences in their distinct objectives bring complications that recommend against any merger. Such turf-oriented responses to the oft-floated idea of combining Metra, Pace and CPA are familiar and, to be sure, hold some merit. But they also demand attention. As the CMAP report documents, numerous points of duplication and lack of intergration exist among the transit agencies. Examination must focus on the specific operational and financial benefits and drawbacks of a merger.

None of this will be easy, of course, and plenty of pitfalls lurk if policy makers aren't diligent and careful. A bigger, centralized operation is better only if it takes advantage of potential efficiencies. And as suburban leaders noted for Pyke's story, there is a real risk that suburban interests could be subordinated in an overly city-focused structure.

But addressing these kinds of challenges are precisely what is meant by the term "tough conversations."

CMAP takes pains to observe that its report aims not just to close the $730 million expected funding gap but also to structure a stable public transportation system that will remain viable over the long term. It's a lofty but important goal, and achieving it must recognize that actions focus at least as much on using available resources wisely as on finding creative ways to generate new ones from riders and taxpayers.