Freeway Collapse A Wake Up Call on Why California Cannot Afford Transit Cuts

Governor Schwarzenegger’s January budget proposal would cut over $1.1 billion from public transit. This includes reducing the State Transit Assistance program, the only state program that assists with operating costs, by 70 percent from last year. His budget offers a paltry $185 million in state funds to help cover operating budgets for systems around the entire state. Transit agencies worry that without the funds to cover their operating costs, they will be forced to hike fares, cut service, and delay the opening on new and expanded lines.

In an article in today's San Jose Mercury News, the Governor's Finance Director and head of the California Transportation Agency contend that the budget submitted by the Governor would increase public transit spending. They reference the diversion of "spillover funds" away from public transit as if spillover dollars weren’t actually intended for transit. In fact, these funds are dedicated transit support for years when gasoline prices are high, as they are this year. The governor isn’t only ignoring the law by diverting these funds, but he’s ignoring the real need that transit operators face when high gas prices mean to increased fuel costs and increased demand for transit service.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s January proposal would also substitute $600 million from Prop 1B bonds instead of using Prop 1B to supplement the transit agencies’ budgets, as voters clearly intended when they passed the bond measure. Bay Area projects that could be delayed as a result include the BART-Oakland Airport Connector project, grade separation projects in San Mateo County to keep cars and transit moving, Amtrak Capitol Corridor improvements in Santa Clara County, and Alameda County Transit improvements. Such delays would increase traffic congestion and hinder efforts to stop global warming.

These baffling transit cuts would be short-sighted even if they were a one-year fix to balance the budget and other public programs also had to also buckle their belts.

But worse still, Governor Schwarzenegger proposes to make many of the cuts permanent, while simultaneously protecting an increase in funds for roads and highways. For example, he proposes permanently redirecting transit’s dedicated “spillover” fund. The legislature created this mechanism to channel additional revenues to public transit, as stated earlier, when rising gas prices increase transit agency costs and prompt greater ridership that they need to accommodate.

Prop 1B funds can only be used for capital costs. But transit agencies need operating costs and they will not build additional lines, or if they do, won't be able to operate them without this funding.

The Bay Area has the most to lose from the Governor’s cuts, because our extensive systems receive more funding than any other region. These difficult months following the freeway’s collapse should remind us that California relies too much on driving and needs adequate funding for public transit. In mid-May Governor Schwarzenegger will revise his budget proposal. We recommend that he reverses his proposed cuts to transit services. And, if he chooses to follow through with the cuts, we urge the Legislature to stop them.

Emily Rusch is an Advocate with the California Public Interest Group (CALPIRG), a statewide public interest group supports legislation aimed at honest government in California.