Agenda Item # 3.1 - Joseph P Thompson | Received 12/29/20221 z' =«<, f :ib HM Letter: Public transit is a black hole - Gilroy Dispatch I Gilroy, San Martin, CA
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letter: Public transit is a
black hole
JOSEPH THOMPSON (=j December 1, 2022
CAL OMCED
DEC 2 9 2022
GILROY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
*a0 0,55
It is difficult for taxpayers to have a happy anything, Thanksgiving Day, or otherwise, when we are being
forced to subsidize bankrupt boondoggle public sector transit with our gas taxes.
Seniors like my 101-year-old Mom, who's quarantined with Covid, cannot afford to pay for gas, food, utilities,
etc., and also pay taxes the highest levels ever suffered by taxpayers in this once -Golden State. VTA and the
other bankrupt boondoggles, Caltrain, ACE Train, SMART Train, Amtrak, BART, etc., are only kept running by
ever-increasing taxpayers' subsidies.
We have a situation in California where unelected "directors" run the transit agencies, hemorrhaging our
money down insolvent black holes, next to be joined by Supermassive Black Hole Bullet Train. It ain't
transportation. It's wealth redistribution.
Transportation is UPRR. Taxis. Shuttles. Uber and Lyft. All of which have their fares/rates cover their
expenses/costs, unlike the transit boondoggles. So, we have a double standard in transport funding.
Motorists pay 102% of our costs. Transit systems' riders pay only about 1% of their fully amortized costs.
Then they cover up their insolvency levels by reporting financials not based on GAAP accounting rules, just
like Enron did, and Bernie Medoff.
It's been worsening since Don and Perry were VTA's chairs. For whose benefit? Not taxpayers, that's for
sure. You know who's making money transporting empty bus and rail seats? Guess.
But we have nobody among our local elected representatives who are willing to call it like it is. I don't see
any signs of that changing. So, taxpayers, especially seniors, suffer on, fleeing the state if they can.
https://gilroydispatch.com/letter-public-transit-black-hole/ 1/2
12/2/22, 7:35 PM Letter: Public transit is a black hole - Gilroy Dispatch I Gilroy, San Martin, CA
For more than 30 years I've offered you, and your predecessors detailed evidence for your paper's first
Pulitzer Prize. Why don't you use it? The taxpayers would bless you for it if you did. Caveat viator. Another
unhappy Thanksgiving.
Joseph P. Thompson, Esq.
Past -President, 1999-2001, 2006, Gilroy -Morgan Hill Bar Assn. Past -Chair, Legislation Committee
https://gilroydispatch.com/letter-public-transit-black-hole/ 2/2
11Q4/22, 1U:b4 AM AT&T Yahoo Mail - Fw: Happy Thanksgiving From the Gilroy Dispatch
Fw: Happy Thanksgiving From the Gilroy Dispatch
From: Joseph P Thompson (
To:
Date: Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 10:54 AM PST
Dear Friends,
It is difficult for taxpayers to have a happy anything, Thanksgiving Day, or otherwise,
when we are being forced to subsidize bankrupt boondoggle public sector transit with our
gas taxes. Seniors like my 101 year old Mom, who's quarantined with Covid, cannot afford to pay for
gas, food, utilities, etc., and also pay taxes the highest levels ever suffered by taxpayers in this once -
Golden State.
VTA and the other bankrupt boondoggles, Caltrain, ACE Train, SMART Train, Amtrak, BART, etc.,
are only kept running by ever-increasing taxpayers' subsidies. We have a situation in California where
unelected "directors" run the transit agencies, hemorrhaging our money down insolvent black holes,
next to be joined by Supermassive Black Hole Bullet Train. It ain't transportation. It's wealth redistribution.
Transportation is UPRR. Taxis. Shuttles. Uber & Lyft. All of which have their fares/rates cover their expenses/
costs, unlike the transit boondoggles. So, we have a double standard in transport funding. Motorists pay 102%
of our costs. Transit systems' riders pay only about 1 % of their fully amortized costs. Then they cover-up their
insolvency levels by reporting financials not based on GAAP accounting rules, just like Enron did, and
Bernie Madoff.
It's been worsening since Don and Perry where VTA's chairs. For whose benefit? Not taxpayers, that's
fur shure. You know who's making money transporting empty bus & rail seats? Guess.
But we have nobody among our local elected representatives who are willing to call it like it is.
I don't see any signs of that changing. So, taxpayers, especially seniors, suffer on, fleeing the State
of they can.
For more than 30 years I've offered you, and your predecessors detailed evidence for your paper's first Pulitzer Prize.
Why don't you use it? The taxpayers would bless you for it if you did.
Caveat viator. Another unhappy Thanksgiving.
Joseph P. Thompson, Esq., Past -President, 1999-2001, 2006, Gilroy -Morgan Hill Bar Assn.
Past -Chair, Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn.
Post -Doc Student, Transportation Law & Policy, Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface
Transportation Policy Studies, SJSU; Transportation Research Board, Georgetown U.; and
Library of Congress
(408) 848-5506
E-Mail: TransLaw@PacBell.Net
cc: PUBLIC COMMENT ---NEXT MEETING; REAL OR VIRTUAL; REGULAR OR SPECIAL; PUBLIC WORKSHOP
OR PRIVATE RETREAT; AND ESPECIALLY THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP VTA & COG.
cc: GILROY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
cc: Jon Coupe], Esq.
Forwarded Message
From: Gilroy Dispatch <newsletter@gilroydispatch.com>
To: Joseph Thompson <translaw@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 09:57:44 AM PST
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving From the Gilroy Dispatch
View a web copy of this email
about:blank
1/2
12/3/22, 11:08 AM Yahoo Mail - HJTA President Jon Coupal's column: What California taxpayers can be thankful for
HJTA President Jon Coupal's column: What California taxpayers can be thankful for
From: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (
To:
Date: Friday, December 2, 2022 at 04:52 PM PST
At your request: This week's California Commentary by View this email in your browser
Jon Coupal
Share
Tweet
Forward
dtikt
XIII
Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association
c shrlln/C( Ul (97.V
HJTA IS THE TAXPAYERS' RESOURCE
Contribute
Forward to a Friend
California Commentary
You are receiving this email because you subscribed on the HJTA website, or you provided your
address in response to direct mail. Please see the bottom of this message to unsubscribe.
What California taxpayers can be thankful for
By Jon Coupal
Thanksgiving has always been a time of reflection, both on the good and bad.
As taxpayer advocates, those of us at Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
have a lot to criticize. California has the highest income tax rate, highest state
sales tax rate and highest gas tax in America. And despite claims that
Proposition 13 has decimated property tax revenue, California ranks 14th out of
50 states in per capita property tax collections.
about:blank 1/4
12/3/22, 11:08 AM Yahoo Mail - HJTA President Jon Coupal's column: What California taxpayers can be thankful for
On top of these burdensome taxes, California consistently ranks at the bottom
among states as a place to do business.
Heavy-handed bureaucracies issuing mindless regulations distinguish our state
from those that foster and encourage free enterprise and entrepreneurship.
Few can argue that California has not declined in many ways in the last 40
years.
Demographers have measured the loss of the middle class, increasingly
making the state home only to the very wealthy and those just struggling to get
by.
Crime, homelessness, illegal immigration and drug addiction are all out of
control and our political leadership is either unwilling or unable to address these
serious problems. It is especially disheartening to see more and more of our
friends and family members leave the state even though many would prefer to
stay if they could afford to.
Those of us who arrived in California a few decades ago continue to work to
restore what we remember about this state. However, in the spirit of giving
thanks, and despite all our complaints about the politics of this state, we must
not lose our perspective. The Golden State is, unquestionably, very tarnished,
but underneath it is still golden (or at least can be again).
From the most expansive view, the average Californian is still fortunate. First,
as citizens of the United States, we are far more free than the vast majority of
humanity. We are protected by a vibrant Bill of Rights guaranteeing us freedom
to worship, speak and assemble. And our elections, while contentious, are
mostly free of the sort of violence that is found in other countries experiencing
regime changes.
To read the entire column, please click here.
Click here to listen to this week's Howard Jarvis Podcast, "Newsom's Plan To Raise
The Price Of Gas, Again" The Howard Jarvis Podcast features HJTA President Jon
Coupal and VP of Communications Susan Shelley with a lively conversation that
takes you inside California government in a way that's fun, interesting and
sometimes scary. Check out all the recent podcasts by clicking here:
https://www.kabc.com/the-howard-jarvis-podcast/
about:blank 2/4
I z/J/zz, l l Aid AM Yahoo Mail - HJTA President Jon Coupal's column: What California taxpayers can be thankful for
A note to our valued members and supporters: To increase the reach of our
message to as many Californians as possible, HJTA made an agreement with
the Southern California News Group papers to carry Jon Coupal's weekly
column. The newspapers in the group, including the Orange County Register
and the Los Angeles Daily News, have added a paywall that allows only a
limited number of page views per month, and then asks readers to become
subscribers. HJTA is not marketing these subscriptions or receiving any
payment from them. The columns are exclusive to SCNG's papers for one
week and then are posted in full on HJTA's own website, www.hjta.org, under
"California Commentaries," where you can read them at your convenience, or
read Jon's column online in all the SCNG papers at these links:
www.whittierdailynews.com/opinion
www.dailybulletin.com/opinion
www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/opinion
www.sgvtribune.com/opinion
www.ocregister.com/opinion
www.pe.com/opinion
wvvw.dailynews.com/opinion
www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinion
www.sbsun.com/opinion
www.dailybreeze.com/opinion
www.presstelegram.com/opinion
Jon Coupal is the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA). He is a
recognized expert in California fiscal affairs and has argued numerous tax cases before the courts.
HJTA always appreciates the support of its members, if it doesn't pose a
hardship. Your donations help us fight to protect Proposition 13 and all
California taxpayers.
Donate Today
Forward to a Friend
Don't Forget To Follow Us On Social Media
about:blank
3/4
12/6/22, 11:55 AM AT&T Yahoo Mail - CalTax: The Tax Digest Volume 60, No. 39
CalTax: The Tax Digest Volume 60, No. 39
From: California Taxpayers Association (
To:
Date Monday, December 5, 2022 at 08:02 AM PST
CALTAX
THE TAX DIGEST
EST. 1926
VOLUME 60, No. 39
December 5, 2022
Newsom Calls Special Session Targeting Oil Companies,
Coinciding With Regular Session's Launch
Governor Gavin Newsom issued a proclamation last week declaring a special legislative
session to "pass a price gouging penalty on oil companies that will keep money in
Californians' pockets."
The special session will begin today, the same day the regular 2023-24 session begins with
the swearing -in of lawmakers and the election of legislative leaders and officers.
The penalty sought by the Newsom administration would effectively make it illegal for one
industry to report profit earnings above a yet -to -be -determined threshold, creating a
prohibition on corporate earnings unlike anything that currently exists.
The proclamation sets these parameters for the special session:
"To consider and act upon legislation necessary to: a. Deter price gouging by oil companies
by imposing a financial penalty on excessive margins, with any penalties collected to be
returned to Californians. b. Empower the Energy Commission and the Department of Tax
and Fee Administration to more closely review and evaluate costs, profits, and pricing in the
refining, distribution, and retail segments of the market for gasoline in California. c. Provide
for greater regulatory oversight of the refining, distribution, and retail segments of the
market to prevent avoidable supply shortages and excessive price increases. d. Make
conforming changes to existing law consistent with paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)."
Under the state constitution, a special session bill is limited to the subject matter of the
governor's proclamation, but is not subject to the regular -session introduction deadline nor
the rule that requires regular -session bills without urgency clauses to be in print for at least
30 days before being acted upon. Special session bills must comply with the voter -approved
about:blank 1/8
12/5/22, 11:55 AM AT&T Yahoo Mail - CalTax: The Tax Digest Volume 60, No. 39
requirement that a bill be in print for at least 72 hours before a final vote, unless lawmakers
vote to waive the requirement due to a state of emergency being proclaimed.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, both
expected to be re-elected to their leadership posts this week by their Democratic
colleagues, wrote in a joint statement:
"Now that the Governor has officially issued his proclamation calling for a special session to
examine oil companies' windfall profits and price gouging, the Legislature is able to add
establishing the special session to our regular organizational session on December 5. We
look forward to reviewing the Governor's detailed proposal."
The procedural differences between the special and regular sessions could be a moot point,
as lawmakers can introduce regular -session legislation on any subject immediately after
taking the oath of office.
After the organizational session, lawmakers are scheduled to return to their districts until
January 4, when both houses will begin work in earnest. Lawmakers have a February 17
deadline for introducing bills, but there are ways to introduce new legislation at nearly any
point during the session — most commonly by gutting an existing bill and inserting entirely
new provisions via amendments.
Since the 2021-22 session officially ended at midnight November 30, California will have a
20-member Legislature (the 20 senators in districts that were not up for election this year)
until the 100 additional members take office today. Another anomaly: the results of the
November elections will not be certified until December 16, so the winners may not all be
known before the term begins. In Assembly District 47 (Palm Springs), for example, only 21
votes separated the two candidates as of the latest vote tally, with 168,889 votes counted.
High Gas Prices Caused by Supply Problems and Taxes, Not
Corporate iVianipuiation, Energy Commission Hearing Shows
California's gas prices are higher than those in other states due to supply -and -demand
issues — including government actions that limit the supply — and the highest regulatory
costs and gas taxes in the United States, witnesses testified November 29 during a five -
hour hearing of the California Energy Commission.
The commission, whose five members are appointed by the governor, called the no -vote
information -gathering hearing to discuss increases in gas prices that occurred earlier this
year, as well as the status of California refinery operations and the reported profits of oil
industry companies. The commissioners were joined on the dais by state Senator Monique
Limon, a Santa Barbara County Democrat.
"Today's California Energy Commission hearing made it crystal clear that California's high
gas prices are a result of California's highest -in -the -nation gas tax, cap -and -trade auctions,
regulatory costs, requirements for a state -specific fuel blend, high demand, and restrictions
on supply," CalTax President Robert Gutierrez said after listening to the testimony. "Today,
the Legislature will return to Sacramento and be called into special session to address high
gas prices. California cannot tax its way out of this problem, as some have suggested. A
windfall profits tax doesn't lower gas prices it makes every trip to the grocery store, soccer
practice, and grandma's house more expensive."
California gas prices have surpassed the national average in 2022, with prices reaching as
high as $6.43 per gallon in early October, according to the American Automobile
Association. Newsom has repeatedly claimed that the price difference is due to "price -
gouging" by oil companies.
about:blank 2/8
12/5/22, 11:55 AM AT&T Yahoo Mail - CalTax: The Tax Digest Volume 60, No. 39
Newsom also noted last week that prices fell shortly after his administration authorized
refineries to switch to the state's easier -to -produce "winter blend" ahead of the usual annual
schedule — an indication that an increase in the supply of gasoline led to lower prices.
California's major oil companies were represented at the hearing by the industry's trade
association, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).
Individual oil companies chose not to participate in the hearing, noting that speaking publicly
about their operations, maintenance, and inventory levels would violate strict state and
federal antitrust laws. The companies previously provided the governor with letters
describing the many factors that go into the price of gas.
Paul Davis, senior vice president of supply, trading, and optimization for PBF Energy, said
his company "formally met with members of the governor's senior staff twice in [the first
financial quarter of 2022] to discuss our concerns about potential near -term gasoline supply
shortages and spoke with them after that several other times."
Commission staff provided information on historical gas price spikes and the status of
California's gasoline market.
Gordon Schremp, the
commission's senior
fuels specialist,
provided a
presentation on
California's fuel price
trends and market
factors that historically
cause gas prices in
the state to be higher
than the rest of the
United States.
California Gasoline Market — More Expensive
• i'.1ar'kel is us..a!li [^ . highest reI I y,:i;< Ilrie pr,c:e 1.1 S.
• Gre,ater burden stale ex:_ige arid iIF':s. i;�:•:
Higher rIpsoline produciio , costs
• En.:lrorrr.rrnt.a program co 1°;
• 7 '•ii e .Spikes :ASSOC la led d; h an isolated ni rket
•;,i.rr exoen_.,iie crude oil for California r_ F1u`ir•,r;
nt:rec; ,lai retas rnaryiiis for r p e ex gasoiiiie bra ids
A PowerPointslidefrom the California Energy Commission's staff presentation
explaining why gas is more expensive in California than in other states.
Schremp noted that California's market is isolated — by time, distance, and pipeline capacity
— from the remaining contiguous United States. This isolation leads to California being
largely self-sufficient in its supply of gasoline and diesel fuel, and imports of gasoline
account for only 3 percent to 7 percent of the total state supply.
The self-sufficiency in oil refining makes California more susceptible to price spikes when
unplanned outages or maintenance occur in any of the state's 11 oil refineries, Schremp
noted.
Schremp concluded that California's higher -than -usual gasoline prices could be attributed to
lower -than -usual fuel imports, reduced refining capacity, unplanned refinery outages, the
state's tax burden, environmental program costs, and market isolation in comparison with
other states, among other things.
Ysbrand van der Werf, the commission's fuels price specialist, attributed the 2022 price
spike to several factors, including renewable diesel being more profitable to refine than
petro-diesel due to the availability of subsidies, production failing to meet demand, and
imports becoming more expensive.
Quentin Gee, manager of the commission's advanced electrification branch, provided an
overview of California's progress toward its goal of 100 percent zero -emission vehicles by
2035. Gee found that zero -emission vehicles comprise 17.7 percent of the state's fleet, and
California is on track to reach its existing goals by 2035. Additionally, the commission
about:blank 3/8
12R7/22, 10:58 AM
AT&T Yahoo Mail - Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT: NEW YEARS .SOLUTION: STOP SHAFTING MOTORISTS AND TAXPAYERS ...
9 e lam+ /�C/
Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT: NEW YEARS RESOLUTION: STOP SHAFTING MOTORISTS AND
TAXPAYERS TO FUND BANKRUPT BOONDOGGLE TRANSIT, SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE
BULLET TRAIN
From: Joseph P Thompson (translaw@pacbell.net)
To: sbcsuper@supervisor.co.san-benito.ca.us; sbcsuper@cosb.us; sbcedc@hollinet.com; info@sanbenitocog.org;
supervisorgonzales@cosb.us; supervisorkosmicki@cosb.us; supervisorhernandez@cosb.us;
supervisortiffany@cosb.us; supervisormedina@cosb.us; supervisors@cosb.us; roxymontana2@aol.com;
robert.rivas@asm.ca.gov; assemblymember.rrivas@assembly.ca.gov
Date; Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:57 AM PST
PUBLIC COMMENT: NEXT MEETING: REAL OR VIRTUAL; REGULAR OR SPECIAL; STUDY SESSION OR
PRIVATE RETREAT;
PUBLIC WORKSHOP; JOINT MEETING OF THE "MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP" COG&VTA; ANNUAL UNMET NEEDS
HEARING
Dear Friends,
The Golden Rule in the National Transportation Policy is "efficiency."
So, why do we force motorists and taxpayers to subsidize to most inefficient
transport available to us: public sector transit.
How many Grand Jury Reports are ignored, get shoveled under the rug?
How badly should we shaft motorists to keep empty bus seats moving? Why
do we pretend that public sector transit is efficient? If it was a horse, we would
shoot it.
Why don't the elected people tell the unelected "delegates," directors of
the transit agencies, that we must reverse course? Fraud, waste and abuse
at the transit agencies undermines our goal of efficient transportation. It's time
for a change. Give us truth in transportation. It's long overdue.
Caveat viator.
Joseph P. Thompson, Esq.
Charter Member, SBCCOG Citi ransit Task Force
Charter Member, SBCCOG Ci ' -'s Rail Advisory Committee
Past -Chair, Legislation Comm i • -e, Transportation Lawyers Assn.
Past -President, 1999-2001, 2006, Gilroy -Morgan Hill Bar Assn.
(408) 848-5506
E-Mail: TransLaw@PacBell.Net
Forwarded Message
From: Joseph P Thompson <translaw@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:50:15 AM PST
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: NEW YEARS RESOLUTION: STOP SHAFTING MOTORISTS AND TAXPAYERS TO
FUND BANKRUPT BOONDOGGLE TRANSIT, SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE BULLET TRAIN
PUBLIC COMMENT: NEXT MEETING: REAL OR VIRTUAL: REGULAR OR SPECIAL: STUDY SESSION OR
PRIVATE RETREAT
OR PUBLIC WORKSHOP: UNMET NEEDS ANNUAL MEETING
Dear Friends,
The Golden Rule in the National Transportation Policy is "efficiency."
So, why do we force motorists and taxpayers to subsidize to most inefficient
transport available to us: public sector transit.
How many Grand Jury Reports are ignored, get shoveled under the rug?
How badly should we shaft motorists to keep empty bus seats moving? Why
do we pretend that public sector transit is efficient? If it was a horse, we would
about:blank
1/2
1 u2022, 1U:58 AM AT&T Yahoo Mail - Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT: NEW YEARS RESOLUTION: STOP SHAFTING MOTORISTS AND TAXPAYERS, —
shoot it.
Why don't the elected people tell the unelected "delegates," directors of
the transit agencies, that we must reverse course? Fraud, waste and abuse
at the transit agencies undermines our goal of efficient transportation. It's time
for a change. Give us truth in transportation. It's long overdue.
Caveat viator.
Joseph P. Thompson, Esq.
Past -Chair, Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn.
Past -President, 1999-2001, 2006, Gilroy -Morgan Hill Bar Assn.
(408) 848-5506
E-Mail: TransLaw@PacBell.Net
BLACK HOLE TRANSIT 12-27-2022.pdf
9.6NlB
11'• Santa Clara Grand Jury Report on VTA 2008.pdf
9 4.8kB
about:blank
2/2
r1)
's lacking
accountabili
Dear Editor,
Lack of accm stability of
COG's drrectols 'to the `elec-
torate and C(7G s Iack of
transparency, continue to
damage our county.
Governance flaws of VTA
identified by the Grand. Jury's
Report, June 23, 2004, have;
been spread to . COG. The
COG VTA "mobility par taxer
slip' reveals the conse
quences of a tiny, impover-
ished agricultural county
going to bed with 'an 800-
pound gorilla~
'better- suited t
ulated citres'in socialist couri-
tries in Europe. Meanwhile,
safety " Th iprov--:..,
rents are,delayed o .never;,
built Santa Clara ,County
,Supervisor ._Dori Gage ; said
;(quoted in it oy Dispatch;-`':
October .` 6Q6) that, neither:
Santa Clara County nor YEA
• would: give any money. to'
=bwld highways in San: Benito.
County. With • Santa Clara
County's ` annual'.`budget :`
',deficit nearing $200:million,';
and the .governor's ax about
to fall and with VTA short
$5billion (uuiderestrinated
is thew customary practice,
Mislead their directors; and the,,
tanagers) for their' boondog
A was found to be the gle with BART and under cur
worst transit agency in the . "rent : statutes governing- pay -
USA by 'the Massachusetts,.,.: mein responsibility for. high-
Institute of Technology study way constriction, it is folly to
of gall the nation's 'transit agen- look to our northern neighbors
cies. VTA' and. AMBAG igno- to, pay, for theeast-west con
ranee and,. apathy ,havve left , vector (formerly
Silicas Valley and Salinas Tonnage flows into and out of
Valley as the largest area son these twovalleys will continue.
the North American Conti- to grow, while our leaders are
nentwithout interrnodalfa,cif bamboozled :by unconstitu-
ities. Governance#laws denti tional; MPOs (metropolitan
fied'by the Grand 'Jury have planning organizations) like.
subsequently been confirmed VTA, AMBAG, COG, TAMC,
by VTA's own auditors. Santa SCCRTC, etc. Until we correct
Clara County voters said "NO" our 'governance flaws, terser '
to VTA:s last Measure'A tax` nate redundant entities mis-;
increase, as did the Monterey
County voters to that county's
Measure A tax increase pro-
posal VTA could have built
an east -west connector
between :' I.Iighway 152 and
Highway:101 years ago, but
VT1's myopic leaders squan-
dered billions on boondog
gles like: "lite rail'' (heavy
socialism) 'and BART to San
.Jose extension.
Oi - `leaders ; divert
motorists' gas taxes to
unused:mass transit' fiascoes
handling our transport policy,
and return to our American
rootsof flee ;enterprise trans: -
port,' we will !continue to see,
our' county made unlivable ley '
bad policy idecisions,:`
A just government derives
its power-froii the consent of
the governed, and nobody
elected COG(or VTA) direc-
tors: Unelected, unaccount
able, pntraTsparent COG
should he terrninated AS AP.
1oe^Thompson, Tres `Pinsk
TA-XPAdt/L5
1f'
FbV=,Q
y.:E Y�_. �iit. _^i�.my'f�3i,. y-A •�S'X�t�;
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF
BAY AREA TRANSIT OPERATORS
Fiscal Years 2010-11 Through 2014-15
5021 a
MIES
CT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1/v/M-' /5 i-lo
July 2016
Non-Farebox Revenue
Property Tax
County Sales Tax
Transit Development Act (TDA)
State Transit Assistance (STA)
Federal Transit Grants
Other
Bay Area System - Statistical Summary Totals
16-Y U cJ F X - ** A.Pj7*L azs-rs?
REGIONWIDE BUDGET 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 2014-15
Operating Costs ($1,000)
Motor Bus
Trolley Bus
Cable Car
Light Rail
Heavy Rail
Ferry
Deviated Fixed -Route
Paratransit
Other Demand Response
Unaudited
Bcost 1,023,673 1,056,862 1,066,283 1,122,203 1,171,675
TBcost 148,445 147,681 142,997 182,562 150,308
CCcost 56,749 59,817 52,451 52,143 52,718
LRcost 231,135 254,176 271,778 284,680 281,999
HRcost ' 558,079 602,562 647,020 664,539 729,757
Fcost 44,636 44,914 50,070 55,712 55,864
DBcost 855 1,003 917 888 929
Pcost 116,225 118,725 121,458 114,717 125,273
DRcost 1,372 1,317 1,219 1,653 1,937
Total Costs $2,181,168 $2,287,057 $2,354,192 $2,479,098 $2,570,461 �c
Operating Revenue ($1,000)
Farebox: Motor Bus Bfare 202,796 205,367 230,493 233,565 233,240
Farebox: Trolley Bus TBfare 52,949 55,447 58,023 54,875 53,719
Farebox: Cable Car CCfare 24,933 27,928 26,698 28,097 27,505
Farebox: Light Rail LRfare 49,691 51,776 73,568 66,466 65,472
Farebox: Heavy Rail HRfare 395,982 430,989 480,576 497,474 554,974
Farebox: Ferry Ffare 21,922 23,177 25,728 30,285 32,324
Farebox: Deviated Fixed -Route DBfare 149 140 151 121 126
Farebox: Paratransit Pfare 9,950 10,416 10,149 9,785 10,346
Farebox: Other Demand Response DRfare 158 156 177 219 230
Total Farebox Revenue 758,531 805,397 905,564 920,887 977,937\
67,817 70,458 78,128 86,890 86,961
124,712 129,923 140,485 137,862 146,471
416,689 461,607 499,074 524,410 563,988
237,554 264,320 275,395 305,247 327,894
123,178 103,186 140,651 128,141 120,145
138,324 139,916 92,580 90,653 57,461
459,236 513,262 438,292 477,151 442,613
Total Revenue
$2,326,041 $2,488,070 $2,570,169 $2,671,242 $2,723,470
* Heavy Rail Farefox Revenue also includes Automated Guideway Service
4 MTC Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators
.rig()•1°
Transit
Productivity
Evaluation
FY 2020
Fresno Area Express/Handy Ride
Clovis Stageline/Roundup
Fresno County Rural Transit Agency
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency
March 12, 2021
Fresno Council of Governments
2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201
Fresno, CA 93721
559-233-4148
www.fresnocog.org
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through a grant from the U.S.
Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, and in part through local
funds from the Fresno Council of Governments
$10.60
$10.40
cu
2 $10.20
v
aW, • $10.00
v
cc
- $9.80
v
$9.60
• $9.40
•Y
a $9.20
0
$9.00
$8.80
25.0%
20.0%
0
cc
iL" 15.0%
v
0
v
cc
c 10.0%
.Q
v
L
u_
LL
5.0%
0.0%
$9.51
FY17
20.3%
FY17
Operating Cost/Revenue Mile
Fixed -Route
Exhibit 1-5
$9.68
FY18
Fiscal Year
$9.53
FY19
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Fixed -Route
Exhibit 1-6
14.5%
FY18
$10.55
FY20
10.3%
FY20
ri4Lf-1:1")
Fiscal Year
14.2%
FY19
1-29
12/27/22, 10:01 AM Subsidies can't save transit from its death spiral 1 The Hill
AD
OPINION :i FINANCE
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Subsidies can't save transit from its death spiral
BY RANDAL O'TOOLE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 08/16/18 5:00 PM ET
The Federal Transit Administration released June 2018 data revealing that the transit
industry has now experienced four straight years of ridership losses. June 30 was the end
of the fiscal year for most transit agencies, and ridership has fallen in every fiscal year since
2014.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/402163-subsidies-cant-save-transit-from-its-death-spiral/ 1/13
12/27/22, 10:01 AM Subsidies can't save transit from its death spiral I The Hill
• LC/ t..JGI l_.Gl II. III IVIQI 111JI I IJ,
• 27 percent in Charlotte;
• 26 percent in Miami;
• 25 percent in Albuquerque;
• 24 percent in Cleveland;
• 22 percent in St. Louis;
• 21 percent in Milwaukee, Sacramento, and Virginia Beach; and
• 20 percent in Los Angeles.
Although the transit industry receives more than $50 billion in taxpayer subsidies each
year, transit agencies rely on fare revenues to cover a third of their operating costs. When
ridership declines, they often cut back service, which reduces ridership still further, leading
to a death spiral.
Ridership is falling because other methods of travel are faster, more convenient and often
Tess expensive than transit. In most urban areas, the average person can access more jobs
in a 10-minute auto drive than a 60-minute transit trip.
The latest blow to transit is ride -hailing. A recent study estimated that ride -hailing
companies such as Uber and Lyft carried 710 million more riders in 2017 than 2016,
while another study estimates that a third of ride -hailing users would otherwise have taken
transit.
Since transit ridership dropped by 255 million trips in 2017, ride -hailing may be responsible
for more than 90 percent of the decline in transit.
Many cities and transit agencies are taxing or proposing to tax ride -hailing in order to
bolster transit budgets. That's like taxing Microsoft Word in order to subsidize typewriters
or taxing calculators in order to protect slide rulers.
Yet, increasing subsidies to transit won't save it. While some transit systems have cut
service, others that increased it still saw ridership losses.
Since 2014, Phoenix increased service by 28 percent, yet its ridership dropped 8 percent;
Atlanta increased service 16 percent, yet ridership dropped 5 percent; Austin increased
service 33 percent, yet ridership dropped 18 percent.
hops://thehill.com/opinion/finance/402163-subsidies-cant-save-transit-from-its-death-spiral/ 2/13
1,9*s
Testimony of Randal O'Toole, Director, Thoreau Institute
Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
March 15, 2022
Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and members of the committee; thank you for
inviting me to testify. My name is Randal O'Toole, and I am a policy analyst with nearly 50 years
of experience studying transportation and land -use issues. Today I'll discuss recent transit trends,
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the role of urban transit in a post -pandemic
world.
Pandemics do not change things so much as they accelerate trends that were already taking place.'
One such trend is the decline of the importance of public transit in the day-to-day lives of most
Americans, which has been going on for more than a century. The acceleration of this trend raises
the question of why we continue to subsidize something that is irrelevant to the vast majority of
Americans outside of New York City.
In 1920, the average urban American rode transit nearly 30o times a year. In 1964, when Congress
passed the Urban Mass Transportation Act, it had fallen to 62 trips per year.2 Over the next 55
years, federal, state, and local governments tried to boost transit ridership with well over $1.5
trillion (after adjusting for inflation) in subsidies. This effort failed: by 2019 ridership was down
to just 37 trips per urban resident.3 Less than 5 percent of working Americans rode transit to work,
down from more than 12 percent in 1960.4 In recent years, transit declined not just in trips per
urban resident but in total trips: between 2014 and 2019, transit systems in Miami, Cleveland, St.
Louis, and several other urban areas lost 25 percent or more of their riders while transit ridership
nationwide declined by 7 percent.5
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act added another $39 billion to this record of subsidies,
plus the better part of $1 billion for buying electric buses. But this is no more likely to reverse
transit's fortunes than the previous $1.5 trillion did.
Transit's long-term decline is due to increasing auto ownership, decentralization of jobs away
from downtowns, and decentralization of residences into low -density suburbs and exurbs. More
recently, the growth of telecommuting further reduced transit, as the number of people working
at home exceeded the number taking transit to work for the first time in 2017.6
Commuters and other urban travelers have good reasons not to use transit, as it is inferior to its
competitors in almost every way: it is slow, it doesn't go where most people need to go, and it is
expensive. The American Public Transportation Association admits that transit vehicles average
just 15 miles per hour, and that doesn't count the time required to get to a transit stop, wait for a
vehicle to arrive, and then get from the transit stop to a destination.? By comparison, automobiles,
which can go door-to-door in most cases, average 30 to 4o miles per hour in most urban areas.
Transit's slow speeds are compounded by the fact that it doesn't go where most people want to go.
Most transit agencies run hub -and -spoke systems centered around downtowns. That made sense
a hundred years ago when most urban jobs were in downtowns, but today only about 8 percent of
urban jobs are in central city downtown areas.8 For many people, getting to a job or another
destination by transit can be a two-hour or more ordeal.
The University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory calculates that, in 2019, the average
resident of one of the nation's 50 largest urban areas could reach nearly twice as many jobs in a
2o-minute auto drive as a 6o-minute transit trip. Transit is so slow that a reasonably fit bicycle
Testimony of Randal O'Toole before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 2
Affairs
rider could reach more jobs in trips of 5o minutes or less than transit riders taking the same
amount of time.9 This makes transit third-class transportation.
Finally, transit is extraordinarily expensive. In 2019, transit fares averaged 3o cents a passenger-
mile.lO By comparison, Americans spent just 25 cents a passenger -mile driving their cars and light
trucks." On top of this, subsidies to transit were more than 10o times greater, per passenger -mile,
than subsidies to highways: while highway subsidies averaged about a penny per passenger -mile,
transit subsidies averaged $1.08.12 Altogether, transit agencies spend more than five times as
much money moving passenger miles as the cost of the average automobile.
Despite these disadvantages, the transit industry has been very clever in coming up with reasons
why taxpayers should continue to subsidize it. They claim that increasing subsidies to transit will
relieve traffic congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote economic development, and
help low-income people out of poverty. None of these claims are true.
Spending more money on transit can't relieve congestion if the spending doesn't result in more
transit riders. In recent years, numerous urban areas including Charlotte, Minneapolis -St. Paul,
Portland, St. Louis and others have spent heavily on new transit projects only to see overall transit
ridership decline. Los Angeles is the worst -case example: for every new rider transit has gained
from building new light -rail lines, the region has lost five bus riders, mainly because the high cost
of rail transit has forced LA Metro to reduce bus service and increase fares.�3
Even if spending money on transit increased ridership, it wouldn't necessarily reduce congestion
if the transit systems end up blocking traffic. The environmental impact statement for Maryland's
Purple Line, which is now under construction, calculated that the line would add millions of hours
of delay to the region's commuters per year because the light -rail vehicles would occupy lanes
once open to automobiles.'¢
Nor is transit environmentally friendly. Outside of New York City, San Francisco, and one or two
other urban areas, transit uses far more energy and emits more greenhouse gases per passenger -
mile than the average car. Diesel buses are particularly dirty, producing more greenhouse gases
per passenger -mile than the average SW.15 Transit agencies hope to fix this with battery -powered
buses, but most electricity in this country comes from burning fossil fuels. The electricity
powering the Washington Metrorail system, for example, generated 286 grams of carbon dioxide
per passenger -mile in 2019, compared with 200 grams for the average car and 244 grams for the
average light truck.
Whenever I hear of a transit project that supposedly stimulated economic development, a little
investigation reveals that this development received millions of dollars in other subsidies, usually
through a mechanism called tax -increment financing (TIF). For example, a 2009 New York Times
article claimed that "new rail transit lines stimulate urban revival."16 But all of the developments
cited in the article actually received TIF subsidies.17
The city of Portland discovered in the 1990s found that TIF without transit would stimulate
economic development but new transit projects without TIF failed to stimulate new development.
So whenever it built a transit project, it accompanied it with TIF and then credited the new
development to the transit project, never mentioning the millions or hundreds of millions of other
subsidies it gave to that development.i8
Testimony of Randal O'Toole before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 3
Affairs
Far from helping low-income people, transit does low-income families more harm than good. In
2019, only 5 percent of people earning less than $25,00o a year took transit to work, compared
with 7 percent of people earning more than $75,00o a year.19 At least 75 percent of taxes used to
support transit are regressive.20 That means that the 95 percent of low-income people who don't
ride transit were disproportionately paying to subsidize transit rides that were disproportionately
taken by high -income workers. That makes transit one of the most socially unjust institutions we
have.
The pandemic has accelerated all these trends. The biggest acceleration is in the number of people
working at home, as the pandemic taught both employers and employees that workers can be
productive without coming into expensive downtown offices five days a week. Many employers
are now planning for hybrid work schedules where people work at home at least two or three days
a week.
The best estimates are that, after the pandemic ends, about four times as many people will be
working at home on any given day as before the pandemic.21 This will take an especially large
telecommuting reduced the number of people driving alone to work by 16 percent, but it reduced
the number commuting by transit by 41 percent.22
Transit will be especially hurt because many downtown offices will have people come in to work
only a few days a week. People have a travel budget measured in time as well as dollars and on
average seem to be willing to spend about five or six hours a week commuting. If they have to
commute only twice a week, they will be willing to live much further from their workplace, which
means transit won't work for them as well as it previously did.
Due to all these factors —remote work, loss of downtown jobs, and decentralization of residences —
transit will never come close to carrying as many riders as it did in 2019. Of all modes of travel,
transit has been slowest to recover from the pandemic. Driving recovered to more than 100
percent of pre -pandemic levels as long ago as June 2021.23 In December 2021, domestic air travel
was more than 87 percent and Amtrak more than 8o percent of pre -pandemic levels.24 Transit,
however, was only 56 percent, and in January 2022 it dipped to 47 percent.25 I estimate that, in
the long run, it will never recover more than about 75 percent of pre -pandemic ridership, or about
25 trips per urban resident, and even that may be optimistic.
During the pandemic, transit agencies argued that they were carrying "essential workers" to work.
If so, they weren't carrying very many of them and it would have been far less expensive to find
other transportation for those people than to keep subsidizing transit. Census Bureau data
indicate that only 3 percent American workers took transit to work on any given workday in
2020.26 Meanwhile, transit subsidies rose from $58 billion to $64 billion and will be even greater
in 2021. With fewer riders, costs per passenger -mile rose to well above $2, eight times the cost of
driving.27
The latest argument in favor of increasing transit subsidies is that it would somehow be socially
just to eliminate transit fares. But it's no more socially just to increase subsidies with regressive
taxes than it is to expect low-income people to live with third-class transportation while almost
everyone else enjoys first-class transport. Currently, the main obstacle to auto ownership for
many is the fact that banks charge up to 25 percent interest for used -car loans to people with poor
or no credit ratings. If we are truly concerned about the plight of low-income people, giving them
low -interest loans to buy a good used car will do more to help them out of poverty than free
transit.28
Testimony of Randal O'Toole before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 4
Affairs
Before the pandemic, New York City was the only American city where transit played a meaningful
role in transportation. Even in cities such as Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington,
transit was only really important for downtown workers. Elsewhere, transit's only relevance to the
vast majority of Americans is as a tax burden.
The real problem with transit is not a shortage of funds but that transit agencies have too much
money and they spend that money on things that do little to help transportation uses, such as
building multi -billion -dollar light -rail lines and taking lanes away from automobiles on congested
roads. More than a half century of growing transit subsidies should have taught us that people are
not going to give up the convenience and economy of private automobiles to ride slow, inefficient
mass transit where they are likely to become victims of crime and infectious diseases. At the same
time, reducing subsidies would make transit agencies more dependent on fares and therefore
more responsive to the needs of people who continue to ride transit.
It is time to stop throwing money at an obsolete form of transportation. Ending subsidies to transit
will still allow some transit to exist, but it will be more efficient, serve mainly those people who
truly need it, and rely mainly on buses that share lanes with other vehicles.
If transit must be subsidized, make the subsidies proportional to the fares collected by each transit
agency. That will give the transit agencies powerful incentives to cater to fare -paying customers.
However, if we are seriously interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, helping low-income
people out of poverty, and solving other social problems, there are better ways of doing so than by
continuing subsidies to a third-class form of transportation.
Notes
1. Davies, Stephen, Going Viral: The History and Economics of Pandemics (London: Institute for
Economic Affairs, 2020), p. 22, iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2o2o/o4/Going-Viral.pdf.
2. Public Transit Fact Book 2021 (Washington: American Public Transportation Association, 2021),
appendix A.
3. National Transit Database 2019 (Washington: Federal Transit Administration, 2020), Service
spreadsheet.
4. American Community Survey 2019 (Washington: Census Bureau, 2020), table Bo83oi.
5. National Transit Database Historical Time Series (Washington: Federal Transit Administration,
2020), table TS2.1.
6. American Community Survey 2017 (Washington: Census Bureau, 2018), table Bo83o1.
7. Public Transit Fact Book 2020 (Washington: American Public Transportation Association, 2021), p. 5.
8. Wendell Cox, United States Central Business Districts (Downtowns), 4th Edition (Belleville, IL:
Demographia, 2020), table 1.
9. Andrew Owen and Brendan Murphy, Access Across America: Auto 2019 (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, 2021), p. 6; Andrew Owen and Brendan Murphy, Access Across America: Transit 2019
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 202o), p. 4; Andrew Owen and Brendan Murphy, Access Across
America: Biking 2019 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 202o), p. 5.
Testimony of Randal O'Toole before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 5
Affairs
10. Calculated from National Transit Database 2019, Service, Fares, Operating Expense, and Capital
Expense spreadsheets.
11. Calculated by dividing expenditures on auto ownership in National Incoine and Product Accounts
(Washington: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2021), table 2.5.5 by automobile passenger miles in
Highway Statistics 2019, table VM-1, and by average auto occupancies of 1.67 from 2017 National
Household Travel Survey (Washington: Federal Highway Administration, 2018), table 16.
12. Calculated by subtracting diversions of highway user fees to transit and other non -highway uses from
general funds spent on highways in Highway Statistics 2019, table HE-10 and dividing by passenger -
miles.
13. Thomas A. Rubin and James E. Moore, II, Metro's 28 by 28 Plan: A Critical Review (Los Angeles:
Reason Foundation, 2019), chapter 3, pp. 3-4.
14. Purple Line Traffic Analysis Technical Report (Annapolis: Maryland Department of Transportation,
2008), pp. 4-1-4-2.
15. Calculated from National Transit Database 2019, Energy and Service spreadsheets. For details on
methodology, see Randal O'Toole, Urban Transit: Browner Than Ever (Camp Sherman, Oregon:
Thoreau Institute, 2021).
16. Amy Cortese, "New Rail Lines Spur Urban Revival," New York Times, June 13, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/06/14/realestate/14sgft.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=urban % 2orevival&st=
cse.
17. Randal O'Toole, "Suckered Again," The Antiplanner, June 15, 2009, http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=1471.
18. Randal O'Toole, Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work (Washington: Cato Institute, 2007),
PP. 8-9.
19. American Community Survey 2019, table Bo8119.
20. National Transit Database 2019, Revenue Sources spreadsheet.
21. Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, Why Working at Home Will Stick
(Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021), p. 3o.
22.American Community Survey 2020, table XK2oo8o1; American Community Survey 2019, table
Bo83o1.
23.Traffic Volume Trends (Washington: Federal Highway Administration, June 2019 and June 2021).
24.Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Revenue Passenger -Miles, All Carriers - All Airports," 2022,
https://tvww.trinstats.bts.gov/Data Elenlents.aspx?Data=?l; Monthly Performance Report December
2021 (Washington: Amtrak, 2022), p. 5.
25.National Transit Database. Monthly Module Adjusted Data Release (Washington: Federal Transit
Administration, 2022), https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2o22-
o3/January%2o2022%2oAjusted%2oDatabase.xlsx.
26.American Community Survey 2020, table XK2oo8o1.
Testimony of Randal O'Toole before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 6
Affairs
27.National Transit Database 2019 and 2020, Fare, Operating Expense, and Capital Expense
spreadsheets.
28.See Randal O'Toole, Reducing Poverty by Increasing Auto Ownership (Camp Sherman, OR: Thoreau
Institute, 2020), for a review of case studies showing that auto ownership helps people out of poverty
better than free transit.