Editorial: Time to consider a new way to pay for transit

A judge's ruling last month in a case involving the state budget has the potential to ignite a new debate over California's commitment to public transportation. If so, we would welcome the conversation, and so should the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The case arose out of a decision by the governor and state lawmakers to take about $1.3 billion that budget formulas had reserved for public transit and use the money instead for other transportation expenses. The real intent of this move was to reduce the need for budget cuts in programs, from health care to education and public assistance, that are supported by the state's general fund.

The California Transit Association, a coalition of the state's public transit agencies, sued, arguing that the diversions from the Public Transportation Account to the state general fund were unconstitutional.

In a blow to transit agencies and a relief to state budget writers, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jack Sapunor last month issued a preliminary ruling that allows the state to hold on to the lion's share of those disputed funds, $779 million. Because those funds were used to pay for home-to-school bus services and other transportation purposes, the shift was legal. The balance of the disputed funds, $409 million, was used to pay off bond debts and not, as the judge put it, "for any transportation planning or mass transit purpose," and thus that part of the shift was ruled illegal.

But it is unlikely that transit districts will get back even that money. As long as the state can rejigger its accounting in a way that shows the $409 million will be used for some vaguely transportation-related purpose, even transit agencies acknowledge that the action is likely to stick.

The ruling leaves the state's transit community at a crossroads. The transit association's executive committee will soon meet to decide whether to appeal, a risky option. They could lose everything. Another option is to try to negotiate with the governor and the Legislature to ensure that the $409 million still in dispute will be redistributed in a way that best protects transit services.

But the transit community is also considering bypassing the courts, the governor and the Legislature altogether and going directly to voters. Josh Shaw, the group's executive director, says his board is actively looking at the possibility of sponsoring an initiative that would ensure that the source of most of this money – a portion of the sales tax on gasoline – be used only for transit.

Transit officials are discussing the possibility of going even further, perhaps forming an alliance with other state transportation interests to back an initiative that would put a gas tax or carbon fee on the ballot, with the funds earmarked for public transit.

At a time when highways and local streets are increasingly congested, gas prices are approaching record levels and there is a national concern about global warming, transit should have a reliable source of funding. And while state spending on transit has grown over the past five years, the recent budget action demonstrates that transit agencies will continue to face an uncertain and volatile funding future.

Given that scenario, a gas tax increase may be transit's best option. It's certainly an option worth discussing.