Skip to Content
Streetsblog Los Angeles home
Streetsblog Los Angeles home
Log In
Governor Greenhouse

LA Times: State Should Act to Save Transit Funding

An editorial in today's Los Angeles Times takes the Governor, the Democratic-controlled legislature, and pretty much everyone involved in the dramatic showdown in state government to task for their role in stripping transit funding in the proposed budgets that are floating around Sacramento.  Sounding more like Kymberleigh Richards or Bart Reed than the flagship newspaper for the Car Culture Capital of America, the Times doesn't pull punches as it breaks down the issue.

When democratic lawmakers presented their proposal for balancing thestate budget, there was one little thing they didn't mention: It wouldhave all but eliminated funding for public transportation -- not justnext year but in perpetuity.

The proposal was vetoed last weekby Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that doesn't mean it's going away.Moreover, the governor's plan is even worse for public transit; theDemocrats want to keep distributing about $150 million the statereceives from a tax on diesel fuel to transit agencies, while thegovernor aims to get the state completely out of the business offunding transit. The rush to jettison passenger rail and buses as thestate tries to cope with a severe budget crisis counters not only thewill of the voters, who have repeatedly demonstrated that they greatlyvalue public transit, but the state's ongoing crusade to reduce itstraffic and pollution woes...

...So Democrats found a clever way around that rule: eliminate the gastaxes, replace them with a user fee that's 13 cents a gallon higherthan the current taxes, then raise sales and income taxes by an amountequivalent to the old gas taxes. They can claim that they can raisetaxes with less than a two-thirds vote as long as they reduce othertaxes by an equal amount.

The problem with this shell game isthat user fees have strings attached: They can only be spent on thingsthat directly benefit those who pay the fee. So a gasoline fee couldonly be spent on roads, highways and other systems used by drivers --and not on public transit.

This is a pretty cynical move.  Take funds people voted for transit projects and move things around to pay for the kinds of highway expansion projects that have been encouraging sprawl development, wrecking our air quality and making California a leader in Greenhouse Gas emissions.  The Governor's veto had nothing to do with the transit raid, he doesn't exactly have a strong track record when it comes to defending transit, so if we want to make certain the state doesn't choke transit to save highway funds, everyone needs to get in touch with their legislators now.  For help, click here.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog Los Angeles

Friday’s Headlines

ICE terror escalating, Vision Zero failing, gondola, Olympics, Metro water taxi, NIMBYs vs. housing, car-nage and more

December 5, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines

ICE, bus lane enforcement, HLA appeals, L.A. vs. SB79, LAPD, Metro December 14 service changes, Camino City Terrace, Norwalk, Ontario, Culver City, Canoga Park, car-nage and more

December 4, 2025

San Bernardino Could Finally End One of Country’s Worst Zombie Projects: The ONT Connector

“The ONT Connector is an inappropriate investment. Ridership capacity and public transportation utility do not support spending billions of dollars for it. Scrapping the project is the right decision. Electric rail to ONT is the appropriate decision,” per The Transit Coalition

December 3, 2025

Wednesday’s Headlines

ICE, CicLAvia sponsorship, UCLA to E Line, South Pasadena, Santa Monica, Pasadena, car-nage, and more

December 3, 2025

Support Streetsblog L.A. Today for a Better 2026

As 2025 comes to a close, we’re asking for your support to keep independent, people-centered transportation journalism alive in Los Angeles.

December 2, 2025
See all posts