Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Transit Annual Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reagan Mass Transit District reports 92,526 rides in 12-month retrospective; urges state action on rural transit funding
Summary
A representative of Reagan Mass Transit District presented a 12‑month retrospective showing 92,526 rides and urged county advocates to support state changes that would shift rural transit funding from a 65/35 split toward an 80/20 split and higher rural allocations.
Greg (last name not provided), representing Reagan Mass Transit District, presented a 12‑month retrospective to the Lee County County Services Committee highlighting ridership, service hours and miles and urging continued local advocacy for state funding changes.
“We are coming up on the closure of the 12 month period of Reagan Mass Transit District,” Greg said, and summarized the year’s totals: “92,526 rides, service hours, 43,330, and service miles, 830,398.” He also told the committee the top three ride destinations were “medical appointments, school, or employment in the workplace.”
Greg said the district is tracking state legislative proposals that could affect rural transit funding. Under the current downstate operating assistance program, he described a roughly 65/35 funding mix in which about 65% comes from the state and 35% from local partners. “They’re talking about modifying that to more of an 80 20 type of split instead,” he said, adding that such a change would be beneficial for rural transit operations.
Committee members asked whether pending state budget proposals that include transit increases would directly benefit the district; Greg said the legislation has at times focused on Chicago-area transit but that rural and small‑urban providers had been attached to some proposals. He said some bills did not clear the legislature and that the district continues to advocate for modifications to how rural transit is funded.
Greg thanked the county services committee and the Lee County Board for support during the district’s initial year and transition period and offered to answer follow‑up questions at future meetings.
