METROPOLITAN MOBILITY AUTH ACT
SB0005 would create a new Metropolitan Mobility Authority to replace and consolidate the Chicago Transit Authority, the Regional Transportation Authority, and the RTA’s Commuter Rail and Suburban Bus divisions. The bill abolishes the existing service boards, transfers their assets, contracts, employees, and obligations to the new authority, and establishes a new governance structure with a board appointed by the Governor, Chicago, Cook County, and the collar counties. It also creates transition procedures, labor protections, pension assumptions, and a new set of planning, reporting, and accountability requirements for the reorganized transit system.
The bill goes beyond governance consolidation and sets out a broad policy framework for regional transit operations. It gives the new authority control over fares, service standards, capital planning, integrated fare collection, transit policing and safety programs, bus rapid transit, and transit-oriented land use coordination. It also requires public reporting on service, finances, safety, and board activity, and creates an inspector general and transparency portal. In addition, the bill amends multiple laws to conform to the new authority and to shift labor, ethics, open meetings, and transportation-related references from the old entities to the new structure.
SB0005 would substantially rewrite Illinois transit law by repealing the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act and the Regional Transportation Authority Act and replacing them with a new Metropolitan Mobility Authority Act. It would transfer statutory powers, assets, liabilities, employees, and contracts from the CTA, RTA, and the RTA service boards into a single regional authority, while also creating new related programs such as the Office of Equitable Transit-Oriented Development, the Transit-Supportive Development Fund, and an Office of Public Transportation Support within IDOT. The bill would also amend numerous other statutes, including the Open Meetings Act, FOIA, ethics laws, labor relations laws, and tax provisions, to align them with the new authority and its funding structure.
The bill would affect transit riders, employees, municipalities, counties, developers, and state agencies. It would centralize fare-setting and service planning, impose new reporting and accountability obligations, authorize new taxes and bonding mechanisms, and create incentives for transit-supportive development and affordable housing near high-quality transit. It also includes specific protections for labor agreements, pensions, ADA paratransit, and certain rider programs, while giving the new authority broad operational and financial powers.
No committee transcript or recorded vote history was provided with the bill materials, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee sentiment in the supplied context. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a major reform intended to improve coordination, financial stability, equity, and accountability in regional transit. The findings section strongly emphasizes urgency, post-pandemic ridership losses, climate and equity goals, and the need for a single integrated system. Overall, the bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a pro-reform, pro-transit orientation rather than a neutral technical cleanup.
The most likely points of contention are the consolidation of existing transit agencies into one authority, the scope of the new authority’s powers, and the financing structure. The bill would abolish existing service boards and centralize control over fares, service standards, and capital planning, which could raise concerns about local control, governance balance, and transition risk among current agencies, county officials, and labor stakeholders. Its tax and bonding provisions, including new or revised sales, use, fuel, parking, and rental-related taxes and substantial borrowing authority, may also draw scrutiny from taxpayers, businesses, and counties.
Other likely areas of debate include the bill’s labor protections and employee transfer rules, the authority’s power over land use and transit-oriented development, and the new enforcement and safety provisions, including transit policing, fare enforcement, and rider suspension rules. The bill also creates opt-out procedures for certain collar counties, which suggests that county participation and regional buy-in may be politically sensitive. Because the supplied materials contain no discussion transcript, these contentions are inferred from the bill’s structure and subject matter rather than from recorded objections.