Living on a prayer? House budget gets RIPTA almost halfway there in plugging $32.6 million deficit.
Public transit advocates fear service cuts may be inevitable with the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority still facing a significant deficit in the Rhode Island House's proposed fiscal 2026 budget. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current)
Motorists were already facing a penny increase in the tax they pay for every gallon of gasoline on July 1, 2025. But now they face the possibility of paying more in order to cut the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority's (RIPTA) looming budget deficit.
Under the House of Representative's version of the fiscal 2026 budget released late Tuesday night, the state's gas tax — now slated to rise from 37 cents per gallon to 38 cents on July 1 — would rise by another two cents to 40 cents, with that bump directed toward the RIPTA. The move would generate $8.7 million for the cash-strapped agency according to a summary of the proposed House budget.
The House's budget also ups RIPTA's share of Highway Maintenance Account funding by $5.9 million, plugging the agency's budget gap by nearly $15 million. Revenue for the fund comes from vehicle registration fees.
The total of $14.6 million helps to plug a $32.6 million deficit the agency faced in the governor's budget released in January. RIPTA CEO Christopher Durand expressed gratitude to House lawmakers for recognizing the urgent need to find more revenue for the agency in a statement Wednesday.
'The agency has long needed a consistent funding stream to allow us to better support getting Rhode Islanders to work, school and healthcare,' Durand said. 'The last time the agency saw a permanent change in its funding structure was over ten years ago.'
But the remaining $18 million gap could mean RIPTA may have to lay off drivers and reduce or eliminate bus routes. Durand said the agency's staff is still analyzing the full impact that the new budget gap could have on RIPTA's services.
Rhode Island's gas tax is the highest among New England states, according to January 2025 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Motorists who buy gas in Vermont now pay 32 cents per gallon while the tax is 30 cents in Maine, 27 cents in Massachusetts, 25 cents in Connecticut and 24 cents in New Hampshire.
But there are no complaints about the increased tax from AAA Northeast, which puts out weekly updates on the average cost of gas in Rhode Island. As of Monday, Rhode Island drivers paid an average of $2.97 per gallon.
'AAA Northeast generally supports gas taxes that help fund and improve broader transportation infrastructure, from roads and bridges to mass transit,' spokesperson Mark Schieldrop said in an emailed statement. 'Funding for public transportation can lead to increased use and ultimately, less traffic congestion for drivers.'
The gas tax on every gallon of motor fuel purchased in Rhode Island is adjusted every two years based on inflation to comply with a 2014 law.
John Flaherty, a senior adviser for GrowSmart RI, called the nearly $15 million revenue infusion 'a step in the right direction,' but still worries it's not enough to keep RIPTA's operations at existing levels.
'Until we commit to building a system that's going to work for more people in this state, we're going to continue to deal with this issue,' Flaherty said in an interview. 'It seems inevitable that there will be some service cuts.'
Providence Streets Coalition Board President Liza Burkin estimates RIPTA could see 160 layoffs and significant service cuts, including paratransit service for riders with disabilities. But House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters Tuesday night that the paratransit program will remain untouched and that he did not see other service cuts as inevitable.
Shekarchi pointed to an overdue efficiency study lawmakers mandated in the fiscal 2025 budget as a way the agency can save costs on staff, operations and equipment.
'I think they need to look at everything,' Shekarchi said.
RIPTA's board of directors commissioned WSP to do the efficiency study on March 27 at a cost of $412,346. The study is being completed in three phases. An initial 19-page memo from Canadian-headquartered engineering consulting firm WSP was thin on details in comparing RIPTA with five peer agencies across the country. It did point to an agency's pursuit of 'universal access agreements,' defined as partnerships where employers pay an annual fee to cover their workers' fares to commute.
RIPTA entered such an agreement with Amazon and through partially subsidized fares for Omni Providence Hotel employees.
In a 20-page draft report issued May 30, WSP recommended investing in routes that are already high performing, potentially eliminating underperforming routes, and expanding commuter programs.
Low scoring routes in the report include the 88 bus, which travels in the morning and afternoon from Simmons Village in Cranston to the Walmart off Plainfield Pike; Route 69, which connects the University of Rhode Island to the Port of Galilee; and the 59X express route in North Smithfield and Lincoln.
But transit advocates want all routes to be maintained, arguing that low ridership routes often provide a vital service for the state's most vulnerable residents. They add that RIPTA is already an efficient agency.
'I have no confidence that another efficiency study is going to reveal some big savings that's going to enable us to get on with building a system that gets more people where they're going in a reasonable amount of time,' Flaherty said.
Zack Mezera, Rhode Island organizer for the Working Families Party, expressed concern that lawmakers chose to raise the gas tax instead of enacting a higher income tax on Rhode Islanders earning over $625,000 a year.
'Throughout this session, Rhode Islanders have been at the State House week after week, imploring state leaders to increase revenue by having the 1% pay their fair share this year, because we can't afford to let the losses pile up,' Mezera said.
The House released its proposed budget on the same evening the Rhode Island Senate unanimously confirmed Bernard Georges to join RIPTA's board of directors. Georges told Rhode Island Current he was aware of the agency's financial woes, but still needs to get up to speed.
'I need to give myself a full insight about the operations of the organization,' he said.
Rhode Island Department of Transportation Director Peter Alviti Jr., the chair of RIPTA's board of directors, said the eight-member panel will be meeting on how the agency can move forward on whatever final budget is provided.
'As the Speaker said, our decisions will be informed by the efficiency study,' Alviti said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Calls Green Tax Credits in 'Big Beautiful Bill' 'Scam'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump criticized his own federal budget legislation in a post on Truth Social Saturday. "I HATE 'GREEN TAX CREDITS' IN THE GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL," the president said, adding "They are largely a giant SCAM." The bill, which includes $4.9 trillion package packed with tax breaks, budget cuts and new Medicaid work requirements, made it past the House last month in a close 215-214 vote, with two Republicans breaking ranks to vote "no," Newsweek previously reported. The next hurdle, opposition and infighting in the Senate. Now, Trump has stated even he has problems with outlined initiatives. "I would much prefer that this money be used somewhere else, including reductions. 'Anywhere' would be preferable!" Trump exclaimed. "Windmills, and the rest of this "JUNK," are the most expensive and inefficient energy in the world, is destroying the beauty of the environment, and is 10 times more costly than any other energy," the President explained, adding "None of it works without massive government subsidy (energy should NOT NEED SUBSIDY!). Also, it is almost exclusively made in China!!! It is time to break away, finally, from this craziness!!!" This is a breaking news story. Updates to come.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Bill C-5 passes in the House, as Carney vows to consult Indigenous groups
OTTAWA — Facing concerns and warnings of Indigenous resistance against a key part of his governing agenda, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged Friday that 'more fulsome conversations are needed' to choose the development projects his government wants to fast-track through controversial new legislation, Bill C-5. Speaking moments after the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons, Carney pledged to hold meetings in the coming weeks with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and experts in a series of summits to 'launch the implementation of this legislation in the right way' in 'full partnership' with Indigenous communities. This will be the 'first step' in the process to choose which projects will be chosen through the new legislation for the fast-track to approval within the government's goal of two years. The Liberal government's major projects bill has passed the House of Commons thanks to help from the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Mark Carney calls the legislation the core of his government's domestic economic response to U.S. tariffs (June 20, 2025 / The Canadian Press) Carney also repeated pledges earlier this week, as the Liberal government rammed the bill through the House over the objections of some Indigenous , environmental groups and opposition parties, that the new process will respect Indigenous rights to consultation and 'free, prior and informed consent' under the United Nations Declaration to the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government House Leader said this week they expect the bill to pass in the Senate next week. 'These projects will be built with Indigenous nations and communities. This is not an aspiration. It is the plan embedded in the bill itself,' Carney said Friday. 'We all agree that more fulsome conversations are needed to select the nation-building projects and to determine the conditions that they must fulfil. In other words, the real work begins now.' In the April 28 election, Carney's Liberals won a minority government while promising to fast-track development projects like mines, pipelines and ports to boost economic growth, make Canada a 'superpower' in clean power and fossil fuels, and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed a series of tariffs on Canadian goods. Carney acknowledged the bill sailed through the Commons quickly, but argued Friday that speed was needed to confront the 'crisis' of the American trade war. 'This is the response. This is us being in charge of our destiny. That's why we pushed it,' Carney said. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty — a former grand chief of Eeyou Istchee in Quebec — said the promised summits are a 'serious signal' that Indigenous communities are going to be 'at the table' in deciding how projects will be chosen under the new process. 'There have been more projects selected. It is something that we will define together,' she said. The bill passed through the House of Commons Friday in two votes, after House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia ruled to split the legislation into two parts. All parties supported a less contentious section to lift federal barriers to trade and labour movement inside Canada. The other, more controversial part dealing with major projects also passed with Liberals and Conservatives voting en masse in favour, and Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green MPs voting against. Toronto Liberal and former cabinet minister MP Nate Erskine-Smith also voted against the national projects part of the legislation . The version of the bill now moving to the Senate came with a suite of amendments, including some that the government supported, aimed at increasing transparency and restricting some of the powers the legislation would create. This includes a provision to obtain the written consent of affected provinces and territories before the government chooses to fast-track a given project, and to ensure the new process that the law would create respects ethics rules and can't override legislation like the Indian Act. The changes also created a new requirement for the government to publish a suite of information about the projects — from the contents of any studies and assessments about their impacts, to all recommendations about them from the civil service — at least 30 days before it officially puts them into the fast-track process. Business groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have also supported the legislation, arguing that a thicket of government regulations has delayed major projects, and that there is now an urgent need to build new infrastructure for energy, critical minerals and other sectors. But Bill C-5 remains controversial, including with predictions this week from some Indigenous leaders that it could inspire resistance and protest like the 2012 'Idle No More' movement because of a lack of consultation on the new powers. MPs have also condemned the national projects part of the legislation as a troubling expansion of power that risks trampling environmental protections and Indigenous rights. After the amendments Friday, the bill retained its proposal to allow the cabinet to choose projects to fast-track based on 'any factor' it considers relevant, and to skirt laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Species at Risk Act when reviewing projects to speed up. 'This legislation is an abomination and one that will be a stain on the reputation of this government and of our prime minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it's a bad effort,' said Green Leader Elizabeth May. Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire accused the government of reproducing the 'condescending and colonialist spirit' of the last century towards Canada's Indigenous Peoples. And Don Davies, the NDP's interim leader, alleged the bill creates 'Henry VIII' powers that allow the government 'to override laws by decree. 'It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens Indigenous rights,' Davies said. 'This bill will end up in court.'
3 hours ago
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership was scrambling on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and "to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
