Time for Chicago to get on the right track

Growing up in rural Wisconsin, my first real taste of independence came in the form of my parents’ wood-paneled Ford station wagon, complete with the obligatory rear-facing third-row seat. Just as vividly as I remember getting burned by that car’s seat belt buckles in the dog days of summer, I remember our first family trip to Chicago—taking the Amtrak from Milwaukee, stepping into Union Station, hearing the rumble of the el, and riding the articulated buses as they snaked around the Loop.

As fate would have it, my post-college career took me to Detroit—a city that went out of its way in the 1950s and ’60s to defund its transit system, only to spend the decades since trying to undo the damage of those disastrous policy decisions. Chicago’s solid, if unspectacular, transit system was one of the key selling points that led me to move here during the pandemic.

Today, Chicago stands at a crossroads, facing a monumental transit funding cliff. Thankfully, Illinois state senator Ram Villivalam and Illinois state representative Eva-Dina Delgado have introduced the Metropolitan Mobility Act (MMA)—a bold plan to consolidate Chicagoland’s four transit agencies into a streamlined Metropolitan Mobility Authority and inject a minimum of $1.5 billion annually in additional state funding. The MMA is part of the Clean and Equitable Transportation Act (CETA), a comprehensive proposal to reform and fund transit, expand the use of zero-emission vehicles, and reduce transportation sector emissions to zero by 2050.

This isn’t just a policy debate—it’s a question of whether Chicago (and, more broadly, Illinois) wants to remain a global city or fall behind.

Chicago vs. global cities: the race toward the future

In the urban planning world, it’s often said that the way to measure a city is not by how many low-income families own cars, but by how many affluent families take transit. By that standard, Chicago is losing ground.

Cities like New York, Vancouver, and Paris have embraced aggressive policies to make transit the superior choice—adopting congestion pricing, expanding bike lanes, limiting parking spaces, and modernizing infrastructure. While other global cities race toward a future of cleaner air, better service, and stronger economies, Chicago is at risk of remaining in an outdated model, failing to invest at the scale necessary to keep up.

The consequences aren’t theoretical—they are measurable

City	Metro population	Per capita annual transit rides (estimated)	Car ownership (per 1,000 people)	Pedestrian fatalities (per 100,000 people)	IQAir cleanest cities ranking	Average life expectancy
Chicago	9.5 million	38	1,120	2	50th	77.2
New York City	19.8 million	81	474	1.2	28th	80.7
Vancouver	2.6 million	155	450	0.4	5th	84.6
Paris	7 million	381	370	1.8	32nd	83.4

The cost of inaction

Chicago’s pedestrian fatality rate is double that of New York City (and five times as high as Vancouver’s), our air quality is significantly worse, and our residents bear far higher costs to own and operate a car. If Chicago were to reach New York City levels of car ownership (474 vehicles per 1,000 residents instead of 1,120), it would imply an estimated annual savings for residents of about $735 million per year. (This takes into account an average $12,000 annual cost of car ownership according to the American Automobile Association.) These outcomes aren’t accidents—they are the direct result of policy failures.

For decades, Chicago has underinvested in transit, while global cities have moved aggressively toward safer, cleaner, and more efficient transportation systems. The consequences are real:

Chicago residents pay two to three times more per year in automotive expenses compared to their peers in global cities.
Poor air quality increases asthma rates, cardiovascular disease, and premature deaths.
Commuters face delays, breakdowns, and underfunded infrastructure, making driving the only viable option in too many cases.

If Chicago matched NYC’s car ownership rates and air quality levels, it could lead to tens of billions of dollars in annual savings and millions of years in increased life expectancy.

Why the MMA and CETA matter

For any city’s residents to choose transit, it must be superior to driving—safer, cheaper, and more convenient. Right now, Chicago’s system doesn’t always meet that standard. Infrastructure is crumbling, stations are littered with waste, and riders face safety concerns—issues that all cities contend with, but that Chicago has failed to address at scale.

The Metropolitan Mobility Act and Clean and Equitable Transportation Act would be transformational, injecting funding, reforming governance, and ensuring that transit serves all communities equitably.

Here’s what the MMA and CETA would deliver:

Equitable climate investment: ensuring all neighborhoods, not just wealthier areas, benefit from clean transit
A clean energy transition: accelerating adoption of zero-emission vehicles and reducing pollution
Transit justice: finally funding overdue upgrades so riders get the reliable service they deserve
Job creation: bringing high-paying careers to communities that need them most

These aren’t abstract ideas. They mean cleaner air, fewer asthma cases, longer lives. They mean better transit, so workers arrive on time, every time. They mean economic opportunity, where sustainability isn’t just a buzzword—it’s a pathway to prosperity.

Illinois and Chicago can either embrace this future or get left behind.

All of us want to live in a city where that little kid from the countryside comes to Chicago and is awestruck by our infrastructure, dreaming of living here one day. Passing the MMA and CETA isn’t just about catching up to other cities—it’s about the future of Chicago itself. We either invest in modernizing our infrastructure and improving the lives of all residents, or fall behind while the world moves forward.

Matthew Roling is a clinical associate professor and the executive director of Abrams Climate Academy at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management.