I didn't say the statement was wrong, just that it is reductionist. Defending the statement as factual is a straw man. If you look at the context and systems resulting in the "fantastic expenses", it tells a different and unflattering story. The cost of the service is, IN PART, self-inflicted.

The statement, "fantastically expensive for transit agencies" is reductionist to the point of being misleading. Having one of the preeminent voices in public transit trotting this out is disappointing but not surprising.

True, the typical goal is to increase ridership on conventional/fixed route transit. It is the opposite w/paratransit, this paper has interesting points regarding "non-published practices" for suppressing paratransit demand:
www.bettertransport.info/cascadia/Tri...

Years ago, following GHG reduction & related land use legislation, the CA Dept of Ed initiated an effort to reform school siting policy. There were public announcements/outreach, a splashy launch conference, etc. It died quickly/quietly with no accomplishments. The building industry might know why.

When this concept and supporting analysis was originally presented to local transportation staff it was criticized as misguided and inadequate, respectively. They stopped consulting local staff.