No Stomach in Senate Committee for Gas Tax Scheme That Cuts $1.5 Billion From Transit

It’s nice to go to a hearing in Sacramento every once in awhile and find yourself in a cloud of nearly universal agreement.  I was able to experience that rare feeling earlier today when the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review held its hearing on Transportation and Resources Issues.

The first item up was the Administration’s proposal to switch taxes on gasoline to free up money for the general fund.  In an earlier post, I explained the scheme and its likely impact on public transit funding  in California: a $1.5 billion cut.  Indeed, the non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office says the “proposal permanently eliminates state transit funding.”  Not good.

Testifying for NRDC this morning, I was pleased to hear the initial comments from many of the Senators.  Senator Alan Lowenthal was “appalled” by the proposal’s impact on transit; Senator Mark Leno told of San Francisco’s continued transit funding problems and wondered how this proposal would help things; and Senator Joe Simitian wisely pointed out the likely ridership impacts of further cuts and fare hikes, particularly on those “discretionary” riders who will once again choose their cars, leading to more air pollution and road congestion. 

And when it was time for testimony, I was surprised by the breadth of opposition to the proposal.  Transit agencies and the California Transit Association were clearly opposed to these cuts, as was the United Transportation Union.  Environmentalists like NRDC, EDF and CALPIRG raised obvious objections, as these cuts baldly undermine our commitment to reducing global warming pollution.   California’s counties were concerned about the future of their local street and roads money, and CalTrain and Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor raised questions of the future of intercity rail in California.  The Sacramento Air Quality Management District and the American Lung Association feared more local air pollution from more driving, and the California Association of General Contractors and the Southern California Contractors Association expressed reservations about a new approach to transportation funding that sacrificed transit and did little to get shovels in the ground. 

James Earp, of the California Alliance for Jobs, and Vice Chair of the California Transportation Commission, summed up the general mood when he said the plan was “bad advice” and a “faulty proposal.”  

I left a bit early, but didn’t hear a single voice in support all morning.

Clearly, we need solutions, and the hard work of banging one out for transit funding is in the works.  But it’s also a rare pleasure to see so many come together to chase a clearly bad idea out of the room.  Hopefully, it will stay out.

Comments