New Report Shows that Public Transit In Phoenix Uses More Energy Per Passenger than Light Duty Truck

Utilizing data provided by the National Transit Database, a new study by transportation policy expert Randal O’Toole shows that public transit has been consuming more energy per passenger mile than the average light truck or SUV since 2016.

Passenger vehicles, planes and transit have all been steadily improving in energy efficiency over the last decade.  Yet of the three modes of transportation, only public transit has seen a decrease in energy efficiency per passenger mile.  This is because public transit is the only mode of transportation to see a steady decline in overall ridership that has wiped out any gains made through  energy efficiency.  Transit continues to move fewer and fewer people while transit agencies continue to pour billions into systems to maintain the same miles of service. 

In other words, transit’s decline in ridership is outpacing its increase in energy efficiency.

The only exception to this rule is New York City, whose commuter rail by far moves the most amount of people than any transit system in the country.  Even the second most used commuter rail line, Maryland’s DC Metro, uses 25 percent more energy per passenger mile than the average light truck in 2017. 

Being such an energy hog also means that transit is less greenhouse-efficient in 93 out of the largest 100 urban areas across the country – including Phoenix.  Even more astonishing is the fact in 90 out of the 100 largest urban areas in the nation, it is more greenhouse-friendly to drive a light truck than take public transit. 

Although many politicians, construction interests, and transit agencies continue to peddle the narrative that transit is good for the environment and a worthwhile public investment, the data just doesn’t support this position.

As personal vehicles become more fuel efficient and transportation technology continues to be revolutionized through ride-sharing and autonomous vehicles, outdated modes of pubic transit such as light rail will continue to decline.  Policymakers should see this writing on the wall and discontinue dumping billions into obsolete transit systems that poorly serve the community.

Current AZ Budget Surplus Built on Tax Increases

The calendar has turned to 2020 and Arizona is once again swimming in the dough. The latest JLBC fiscal update released before the holidays showed that November revenues were $44 Million above expectations. Arizona is now $550M above the FY 2020 revenue forecast for the fiscal year (which ends June 30), and the surplus will grow much larger once the record-breaking Christmas shopping season is included in the tabulation.

It’s looking more and more likely that Arizona will approach $1 Billion in excess revenues this fiscal year.  

Where is all this extra money coming from? There is no doubt that pro-growth policies have contributed to the surplus, and everyone from President Trump, Governor Ducey and the State Legislature deserve credit for moving Arizona in the right direction.  But it cannot be ignored a large portion of the 2020 surplus is the result of tax and fee hikes that have been implemented the last couple of years. Tax increases that were unintended, unanticipated or much larger than expected.

VLT Registration Fee—$185M in 2020

When the legislature passed and Governor Ducey signed the VLT registration fee into law in 2018, it did not take long for voter backlash to occur. Originally promised to be just $18, the ADOT director announced just before implementation that the fee would instead be $32. Taxpayers were furious at this perceived money grab.

Luckily, several lawmakers made abolishing the fee their top priority, and were successful in negotiating a repeal in the budget. The bad news is the repeal does not take effect until July 1, 2021, which means the state will collect at least $463M in VLT fees before it expires.

Online Sales Tax Increase–$65M in 2020

If it felt like online purchases seemed a little more expensive this holiday season, it’s probably because in October, Arizona joined several other states in taxing online sales. This was made possible as a result of the Wayfair decision issued by the US Supreme Court that overturned previous case law preventing states from taxing online sales unless the retailer had a physical presence in the state.

There were many arguments made in favor of taxing online sales, but one of them WAS NOT to impose a net tax increase. In fact, virtually every lawmaker that voted in support of taxing online sales did so with an understanding that any sales tax increase would be offset with an income tax cut.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, the income tax cut didn’t come close to offsetting their online sales tax increase. Arizona is on pace to collect over $300 Million in taxes from online sales, of which around $150M will go to the state general fund. That is $65M above the projected forecast in last year’s budget.

Lawmakers who were reluctant to support a new tax on online sales did so in good faith that the revenue estimates being used were reasonable and accurate. No one believes that undershooting the revenue estimate by such a large amount was malicious or intentional, and it is understandable that policymakers would be conservative in their forecast. But they now must face the reality that taxpayers did not come out whole in this exchange.

Income Tax Conformity–$100M to $200M in 2020

Though crafting a workable tax conformity package to comply with the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act turned into a complicated mess, one point of consensus was that conformity should not result in a tax increase/windfall for the state. There needed to be offsets/tax reductions designed to make taxpayers whole.

Estimates varied on the size of the required offset, and the amount settled upon by lawmakers was $220 Million.  Just like the sales tax estimate, this conservative figure is coming in well under the mark. How do we know it’s going to be more than $220 Million? Because Arizona also needed to pass conformity legislation for Tax Year 2018.

JLBC estimated the one-time tax hike for retaining TY 2018 conformity tax revenues at $155 Million.  After conformity was passed in May, income tax revenue ended up being $240 million above forecast. Even if one assumes that half of this windfall is attributable to economic growth, the state received a $120M boost from conformity.

Tax Hikes Need to be Rolled Back

With Arizona approaching a $1 Billion dollar surplus, there is no excuse to retain these tax and fee hikes. At a minimum, the recent changes that resulted in unintended tax increases should be addressed. Taxpayers were told that both conform and reform, and the taxation of online sales would not result in a net tax hike. This agreement should be honored.

And if the legislature and Governor Ducey really wanted to be pro-taxpayer, they could roll back all three and still have hundreds of millions to spend on other priorities such as K-12, roads and correctional facility repairs.

The Club urges policymakers to do the right thing and give the money back to taxpayers.

Don’t Forget to Register to Vote!

Participating in our electoral process is one of our most precious rights, which is why the Arizona Free Enterprise Club is asking Arizona residents to get involved and register to vote!

Registering to vote in Arizona is easy and can be done online and in just a few minutes. Visit https://servicearizona.com/voterRegistration and fill out the form and your registration will be processed electronically.

As a reminder, anyone that has moved must update their information in order to be properly registered and eligible to vote. This can be done online as well.

Thank you for doing your part and serving your country!

For more information visit https://azsos.gov/elections/voting-election

Lawmakers Successfully Negotiate Phase Out of Car Registration Fee

Last year, under the guise of public safety, a bill was passed at the legislature to charge Arizona drivers an additional VLT (vehicle license tax) fee. Although it was purported as a dedicated funding source for Highway Safety Patrol, the money was immediately swept to support payment of the Governor’s 20×2020 teacher salary raise plan.

The fee was passed with all Democrats and a handful of Republicans, with conservative Republicans getting rolled on the bill.  Despite the claims that the fee would be $18, the bill gave unilateral authority to the Department of Transportation to set the tax, and when finally assessed the fee doubled at $32. 

In the New Year, without ANY organized opposition, Arizonans all over the state started expressing their outrage to lawmakers about the tax.  Several legislators immediately filed bills to repeal and/or cap the fee.

Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (the main champion of the full repeal) sponsored Senate Bill 1001, which sailed out of the senate with a 24-6 vote.  Many of the lawmakers who supported the bill last year have now backtracked on their vote.

The bill was never given a full vote in the House as it got caught up in budget negotiations with the Governor’s office.

Now budget bills have been released which showed a 5-year phase out of the tax.  With Senator Ugenti-Rita holding the line, the Governor’s office finally ceded to a 2-year phase out of the fee.

Unfortunately, taxpayers won’t being seeing a refund of that $32.  However, this is a tremendous win for legislators and taxpayers!  Not only were they successful in getting a tax eliminated that should have never been passed to begin with, but they are in the process of repealing some of the worst public policy to ever pass out of the legislature.

The Left and Media Ignore Initiative Fraud While Attacking SB 1451

The Left and Media Ignore Initiative Fraud While Attacking SB 1451

There is an open secret regarding Arizona’s initiative process, one known by political insiders, ignored by the media and accepted by every group looking to buy their way onto the ballot box.  It is that committees that run ballot initiatives hire felons and fraudsters to collect signatures to qualify propositions for the ballot.

This statement is factually true and supported by evidence, yet is immediately denounced by liberal opponents and the media as a cynical attempt to thwart access to the ballot.

It is why when initiative reform measures are proposed such as Senate Bill 1451, no time is spent debating the actual provisions of the bill designed to crack down on the abuse. They fear this debate because it will expose the true intentions of their opposition. Instead, the howls of “voter suppression” get louder to avoid confronting these questions.

How bad is the abuse? In 2018, undeniable evidence was discovered that the “Outlaw Dirty Money” initiative hired several criminals to collect signatures on their behalf.  These individuals’ wrap sheets included offenses such as theft, assault, insurance fraud and robbery.

Paid and out of state circulators are legally required to register with the Secretary of State.  However, this registration requirement does not prohibit felons or others convicted of identity theft from signing up to collect.  There is also no penalty for paid circulators who provide false information on their registration form. Unsurprisingly, many of the paid circulators working for Outlaw Dirty Moneyfalsified information on their circulator registration forms – lying about their permanents addresses and even using fake names. 

They would have gotten away with this scheme if not for an extensive review of the petitions by opponents of the measure. When the felons and fraudsters were discovered and challenged in court, 15 of the paid circulators working for the measure ignored the issued subpoenas and simply refused to show up in court. 

This wasn’t the only initiative that employed shady or illegal practices.

In the case of Proposition 127, the committee’s own campaign manager admitted in court that most of their signatures were likely invalid.  Of the over 240,000 invalid signatures they submitted, over 20,000 of them were submitted by circulators with felony records.

It is for these reasons that Senator Vince Leach introduced Senate Bill 1451, to address these abuses of our initiative system.  SB1451 includes two significant reforms:

  1. Prohibits felons and criminals convicted of fraud and identity theft from registering as paid circulators. Right now, there is no prohibition for these individuals to register as paid circulators.
  2. Makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for individuals to knowingly omit or falsify information on their circulator registration form. Candidates, elected officials and lobbyists file registration forms and financial disclosures under threat of perjury. Paid circulators should be punished just like anyone else who files falsified information with the Secretary of State.

Yet one would never know just how necessary and reasonable these reforms are over the cries from opponents claiming this will end the initiative process. 

The reality is this: groups looking to buy their way onto the ballot box have no desire to police their own people, they are okay with fraud in the initiative process, and they don’t believe there should be consequences when people are caught red handed committing fraud.

But outside of the echo-chamber of the state capitol, the average Arizonan disagrees.  Over 85 percent of Arizonans polled supported the exact type of anti-fraud provisions included in SB1451 – including prohibiting felons from collecting their personal information. 

Voters know this is wrong. Most lawmakers know this is wrong. The passage of SB 1451 is long overdue.

Corp Comm Charging Station Mandate is a Subsidy for the Rich

Corp Comm Charging Station Mandate is a Subsidy for the Rich

There has been an important policy debate stirring in Arizona over a proposal to mandate the construction of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations by utility companies.  The current proposed policy would benefit a few select companies and electric vehicle car owners at ratepayer expense.

Surprisingly, this conversation has not been happening in the transparency of the state Capitol amongst the state’s elected lawmakers – but by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) – whose primary charge is to set utility rates.  This is inappropriate. 

Voters expect policies of such sweeping state implication to be the purview of the Arizona State House and Senate, not the Corporation Commission.  After all, existing subsidies for electric vehicle owners such as the utilization of the HOV lane, significant reductions in the cost to register an electric vehicle, and an exemption on the first year for vehicle emissions testing are all statutory laws that went through the more public and rigorous legislative process. 

Aside from the ACC being the wrong venue for this discussion, there are deep policy flaws with the proposal. 

First, the evolution of new technology into the automotive and energy marketplace has been good for the economy, consumers and the environment. But building charging stations would inject another subsidy into the rate base that picks winners and losers among ratepayers.  Less than 1 percent of the population own and operate an electric vehicle, yet they will benefit from this program at the expense of the other 99 percent. Additionally, since most electric vehicle owners are overwhelmingly wealthy and affluent, this is a subsidy that will be paid for by the middle class to benefit the rich.  

Secondly, as cited, electric vehicle car owners already receive favorable tax treatment and do not need an additional subsidy. Currently, the majority of Arizona’s transportation infrastructure is financed through vehicle fuel taxes. There is not a comparable EV tax, which is a great deal for adopters of the technology. If the Commission moves forward with subsidizing charging stations, internal combustion car owners would be getting hit at the pump as well as through their utility bills.

The ACC proposal is simply unfair.

Thirdly, the construction of charging stations should be a function of the private sector. If the belief is that electric vehicles are the future of transportation, then there will be a market and viable business model for the construction of charging stations throughout the state. The government will only depress the cultivation of the EV charging station marketplace if the Commission moves forward with this proposal.

Finally, this proposal would set a precedent for additional subsidies to preferred constituencies. For example, if we are to build charging stations for electric cars, why not for electric scooters or golf carts? Once the Commission begins handing out special deals to one class of ratepayers, it should expect others to get in line asking for their sweetheart deal as well.

The Club understands the desire of the Commission to promote new ideas and technology, but mandating the construction of EV charging stations is not the right approach.