The proposed pay-to-drive plan under Plan Bay Area 2050 aims to address congestion and environmental issues by imposing charges on driving in certain areas. This includes dual lanes with tolls for less congested lanes and per-mile tolling charges.
While intended to reduce traffic and promote alternative transportation, these measures are flawed and could disproportionately harm low-income and rural communities. By adding costs to driving, these plans risk worsening existing transportation inequities rather than addressing the core issues of congestion and inadequate transit infrastructure.
Recent data disputes the notion that low-income families predominantly use public transportation. Contrary to some transit agency claims, 80% of low-income individuals own at least one vehicle. This increase in vehicle ownership, which improves access to job opportunities, complicates transportation policy. Additional costs on driving will unfairly burden those who rely on their vehicles for essential needs.
Public transportation in many regions, including rural areas like Gilroy, is insufficient. Unlike cities with extensive transit systems, like San Francisco or Boston, rural and suburban areas often lack the density needed for frequent, reliable service. A pay-to-drive scheme in such areas is not only impractical but also inequitable, deepening disparities by imposing further financial strain on those least able to bear it.
To build a fair transportation system, we must focus on improving public transit quality and availability while ensuring policies do not disproportionately impact low-income and rural communities. Instead of penalizing drivers, we should develop strategies that support both vehicle access and effective public transit.
The VTA’s financial crisis, highlighted by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, reveals significant issues. The agency faces a severe budget deficit and minimal reserves.
The report criticized the VTA for poor financial oversight and reluctance to review past decisions, noting that political pressures have compromised fiduciary responsibilities, worsening the agency’s financial instability.
To address this, there should be enhanced financial oversight, regular audits and a review of executive compensation to align with fiscal health. Additionally, evaluating past decisions and strengthening governance structures are crucial for improving accountability and transparency.
Having commuted by train and bicycle for years, I appreciate the value of public transportation. However, my experience showed it was neither faster nor less expensive than driving. This highlights the need for transit solutions that truly meet commuter needs.
Engage with local transportation authorities to voice concerns about the pay-to-drive proposal and advocate for alternative solutions. Request meetings with the VTA and city council to discuss the plan’s impact. Push for financial transparency and advocate for equitable transportation policies. Stay informed and make your voice heard by signing up for updates at planbayarea.org/.
The pay-to-drive proposal, though well-meaning, risks further burdening those already facing transportation inequities. We must advocate for solutions that address vehicle access and efficient public transit to ensure fair and effective transportation for all community members.
Boondoggle “Bullet Train” is now projected to cost $128 Billion. Yet we still keep voting the same leaders into office. Now CalTrain needs another bail-out by sales tax increase. Gas-Tax is the highest in the nation, DMV fees are foolishly high. California roads are in a poor state of repair. Now they want a pay per mile scheme. No incumbents are getting my vote.
Ah mon ami,
The late honorable Norman Y. Mineta said, in 1995 at the Institute at SJSU that now bears his name, “The crucial question in transportation today is: What should government do, and what should it leave to others.” Norm was right then, and it is still our crucial question. Do we build on the quicksand of socialism, or on the bedrock of capitalism? At the very least, transit agencies directors ought to be elected to office, and not appointed as at present. Only elected officials are subject to recall remedies in the State Constitution. On the ground floor of the Capitol Building in Sacramento, there are windows for each County. Where is VTA’s window? COG’s? TAMC? SCCRTC? Etc. Not in sight anywhere, but they govern as though they had lawful jurisdiction from the voters to do so. San Jose Bus Lines, Inc., went insolvent, declared bankruptcy. Today’s insolvent transit agencies crow “success,” and demand higher and higher gas & sales taxes to cover their losses, giving themselves and the public sector union employees who drive those empty buses huge wage increases, benefits and pensions. So, is transit for transportation, or is it to defraud voters and reward the fraud, waste and abuse we see at VTA, COG, TAMC, SCCRTC, Etc.? After the Wilson Administration nationalized the railroads during WWI, we denationalized them with the Transportation Act of 1920. Why? Government ownership and operation of the railroads was a fiascoe, like Amtrak today, only worse. In 1970 during the debate on creation of the National Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak), Congressmen stood on the floor of the House and proclaimed, “It will be self-sufficient in three years.” Yep, pigs fly. Not. Haven’t we learned from the mistakes of the past? Apparently not. The definition of insanity is repeating your mistakes and expecting a different outcome. Our local leaders have us on the same route taken by the USSR, the Road to Serfdom. Why do we still believe their lies?
Caveat viator.
Joseph P. Thompson, Esq., 408-848-5506;
Past-Chair, Legislation Committee. Transportation Lawyers Assn.;
Past-President 1999-2001, 2006, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar Assn;
E-Mail:
Tr******@Pa*****.Net