CALPIRG Testimony on the Need for Full Public Transit Funding
Senate Budget Subcommittee on Transportation
March 29, 2007

Chairman Mike Machado and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. My name is Emily Rusch, and I am an advocate with CALPIRG, the statewide public interest group. I am here before you today to urge you to fully fund public transit in the 2007-2008 budget.

Voters want relief from traffic congestion. In a Los Angeles County PPIC poll in 2005, 78% listed traffic congestion as a major problem – higher than affordable housing, air quality, quality of education, and lack of job opportunities. Last month the Bay Area Council’s annual poll found that traffic congestion once again ranks as the #1 issue in the Bay Area. Finally, in a recent SANDAG poll in San Diego, more than a quarter responded to an open-ended question, “What’s one thing to change about San Diego?” with a traffic and/or transportation related answer, including 8 percent of respondents who specifically requested more and better public transit as the one thing to change about the region.

In addition, more voters prefer that public transit is the top funding priority for transportation. A September 2006 PPIC poll found that 50% of Californians believe mass transit options should be the top funding priority for transportation, while only 40% of Californians prefer roads and highways as the top funding priority.

Of course it should be recognized that public transit will never solve traffic congestion. However, public transit does keep additional cars off the road. The Texas Transportation Institute’s 2005 Urban Mobility Study estimates that without the public transit systems in use today, traffic congestion in our country’s cities would be 27 percent worse.

Perhaps more significantly, public transit offers commuters alternative options to wasted, often stressful, time sitting behind the car wheel in traffic. California’s population will grow by 13 million people by 2030 – more than the entire current population of Los Angeles. Traffic congestion, and voters’ frustration, will become significantly worse if we do not build more travel alternatives to get Californians where they need to go quickly, safely, and comfortably.

Public transit also reduces our oil dependence, unhealthy air pollution, and global warming pollution. Transportation is the biggest consumer of oil in the United States, accounting for about two-thirds of demand. According to the American Public Transit Association (APTA) cars get an average of 19 miles a gallon. In comparison, public transit on average gets 57 miles per gallon per passenger, three times more efficient than cars. Less fuel needed results in less unhealthy air pollution, less dependence on foreign oil, and less global warming pollution.

California already spends less than 20 percent of transportation dollars on public transit--a stark contrast to the polls that show many Californians want public transit to receive funding priority for transportation dollars.   

To make matters worse, the Governor’s budget would redirect most of the little funding public transit does receive from the state to other programs. In total, the Governor would redirect more than $1.1 billion from public transit accounts to other programs, more than half of funding that the agencies were counting on from the state. The cuts include $411 million in funds that would support public transit operations, which would result in a 70% decrease in funding over last year. In addition, the Governor’s budget would take away $700 million for capital, and backfill the decrease with $600 million from Proposition 1B bond funds, despite being a clear violation of the voters’ intent to increase transportation infrastructure funding through the passage of the bond last November.

Therefore, CALPIRG urges this committee to fully fund public transit in the 2007-2008 budget. The equation is simple: the faster, more efficient, more affordable and more extensive California’s public transit network is, the more people will ride it. That means fewer cars on the road. It means fewer gallons of gas and hours of time wasted in traffic and lower emissions of greenhouse gases and other dangerous pollutants. But the public transit agencies need capital and operating funds to make public transit a viable alternative for more travelers.

In addition, we urge you to ensure that:
a.    Public transit funds from Proposition 1B are used as voters intended,  to supplement, rather than replace, existing state dollars for public transit capital needs such as buying or replacing new and clean fuel buses, shelters, transfer stations, light rail and rail equipment, and constructing extensions.
b.    The so-called “spillover” funds are protected for critical public transit needs not only in this year’s budget, but in future years as well. Especially with the high cost of fuel, and ridership up on many of California’s systems, public transit agencies need the spillover funds to cover their operating costs in years of high gas prices.

Thank you for your time.