San Diego transit at a crossroads? MTS boasts robust ridership recovery — but faces financial crisis

San Diego's Transit System Faces Financial Crossroads Despite Nation-Leading Ridership Recovery

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): San Diego's Metropolitan Transportation System has achieved the nation's second-highest post-pandemic ridership recovery at 95% and operates as one of the most cost-efficient transit systems in the United States, yet faces projected annual deficits exceeding $120 million by fiscal year 2029. Despite requiring approximately $300-350 million in annual taxpayer subsidies — substantially lower than peer systems — officials are considering service cuts, fare increases for the first time since 2009, and a potential November 2028 ballot measure for a half-cent sales tax increase dedicated to transit after voters narrowly rejected a regional transportation tax measure in November 2024. The funding crisis comes as the system struggles with a fundamental chicken-and-egg problem: limited coverage and commute-centric design prevent transit from substituting for private vehicles, undermining both high-density housing development and political support for the transit investment needed to break the cycle.

---

San Diego's public transportation system finds itself in an unusual predicament: thriving ridership and operational efficiency coupled with an impending financial crisis that threatens to undermine recent progress. The Metropolitan Transportation System has emerged as a national leader in pandemic recovery and cost-effectiveness, yet looming budget shortfalls could force difficult decisions about the future of transit in America's eighth-largest city — even as structural limitations in coverage and service design raise fundamental questions about whether the system can ever truly compete with private vehicles.

Ridership Recovery Outpaces National Trends

MTS achieved 81.2 million annual riders in fiscal year 2025, representing a 95% recovery from pre-pandemic levels and marking the second-highest recovery rate among large U.S. transit systems. This significantly exceeds the national average of 85% for transit ridership recovery.

The growth spans all service categories. Bus ridership increased from 35.7 million to 38.2 million riders, while trolley ridership jumped from 39.6 million to 42.6 million between fiscal years 2024 and 2025. All three existing light rail lines experienced gains, with the Green Line rising 7.1%, the Blue Line increasing 6.3%, and the Orange Line growing 4.6%.

In October 2024, MTS logged 7.7 million passenger trips, the highest ridership month in the fiscal year, with one week averaging 282,000 passengers per day — the highest week on record since the onset of the pandemic.

Perhaps most encouraging for transit planners, so-called "leisure rides" by passengers who own cars but choose transit jumped 44% in fiscal 2025 compared to the previous year, suggesting MTS is successfully attracting choice riders rather than serving only transit-dependent populations.

A November 2024 customer satisfaction survey revealed that 83% of bus riders and 82% of trolley riders are satisfied with MTS service — well above national averages for transit agencies of 58%.

MTS officials credit new services including an express bus connecting downtown to the U.S.-Mexico border, more frequent trolley service, enhanced security at stations and on trains, and the introduction of contactless payment systems for driving the ridership gains.

Cost Efficiency and Taxpayer Burden: A National Model

While many transit agencies struggle with high operating costs and require massive taxpayer subsidies, MTS stands out for exceptional efficiency in both operational costs and financial performance — though it still requires significant public funding to operate.

Operating Cost Efficiency

In fiscal year 2023, MTS' operating expense per passenger mile of $0.91 compared favorably to LA Metro ($1.84), San Francisco BART ($1.15), San Francisco Muni ($3.66), Sacramento RTD ($3.62), Santa Clara VTA ($3.85), Alameda-Contra Costa Transit ($4.35), and Orange County Transportation Authority ($2.35).

Among California transit operators, MTS has the lowest operating expense per passenger mile traveled after specialized vanpool services, benefiting from the Mid-Coast Blue Line extension that added long-distance trips, extensive bus rapid transit services with dedicated lanes and transit signal priority, and optimized route structures.

Farebox Recovery and Subsidy Requirements

San Diego's trolley has the best financial performance of any national light rail system, with an operating ratio of 56% — meaning farebox revenue covers more than half of operating costs. This performance rivals that of legacy subway systems in New York and Chicago. The farebox recovery ratio for light rail systems nationally ranges between 12.0% (Dallas) and 57.4% (San Diego), with an average of 29.6%.

For bus operations, MTS maintains a farebox recovery ratio around 38%, with an overall subsidy per passenger of approximately $1.65 — the lowest among peer agencies.

However, these strong ratios still translate to significant taxpayer subsidies. MTS' operating budget for fiscal year 2026 is approximately $473 million annually, with fares making up less than 1 in every 5 dollars needed to run service. This means taxpayers must provide approximately $380 million in annual operating subsidies, plus additional capital funding.

By comparison, Los Angeles Metro requires an annual operating shortfall of almost $2.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies, while San Diego's more efficient operations require substantially less despite serving the nation's third-highest passenger trips in California.

Tax Burden Breakdown

MTS receives approximately 0.2 cents (one-fifth of a cent) from the county-wide TransNet half-cent sales tax for transportation, which is managed by SANDAG and also supports highways, local streets, and other projects. Combined with state formula funds, MTS receives less than half a cent total from sales taxes to run service — meaning every $100 purchase generates about 45 cents for MTS operations.

TransNet, the half-cent sales tax approved by voters in 1987 and extended in 2004 for 40 years, funds numerous transit, highway, freight, bikeway, and walkway programs countywide, and has generated $4.4 billion to date.

The system also receives federal formula funds (approximately $70.8 million annually), state Transportation Development Act funds, and other subsidies to make up the difference between fare revenue and operating costs.

Fare Affordability

The system's efficiency extends to fare affordability. Regular adult fare is $2.50, with one-way fares on the PRONTO payment system including unlimited transfers for two hours, and a $6 daily maximum fare cap. Youth 18 and under ride free with a Youth PRONTO account or card. However, MTS has not raised its base fares since 2009, eroding its farebox recovery ratio over time as operating costs have increased substantially.

Financial Storm Clouds Gather

Despite positive ridership trends, operational efficiency, and relatively modest subsidy requirements compared to peer systems, MTS faces what officials describe as a major budget crisis. The transit agency projects deficits of $120.1 million in fiscal year 2029 and $145.6 million in fiscal year 2030.

"Despite all these really positive ridership trends, in a few years we will hit a major budget shortage," Julia Tuer, government affairs manager for MTS, told the San Diego City Council's Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The financial pressures stem from multiple sources. MTS raised base pay for workers by roughly 40% over recent years due to a competitive job market. Additionally, while growing ridership has boosted revenues, MTS has added discounted youth passes and free transfers between buses and trolleys, reducing per-rider revenue. The system also faces lower-than-expected sales tax revenue from existing sources like TransNet and uncertainty around federal and state funding availability.

MTS reallocated $25 million in non-critical capital funds to support operations in fiscal year 2026, with additional reallocations of $35 million in fiscal 2027 and $50 million in fiscal 2028 anticipated. Over five years, this will total $225 million shifted from capital improvements to operating expenses. The fiscal 2026 operating budget also includes usage of $62 million in operating deficit reserves — excess stimulus funds saved specifically for balancing future operating budget deficits.

Potential Solutions Under Consideration

Transit officials are exploring several options to address the funding gap:

Service Evaluation: MTS hired Transportation Management & Design, a Carlsbad-based consulting firm, to conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis over the next 18 months, analyzing two scenarios: transit service expansion if new funding sources are found, and service reductions if no new funding sources are secured. The analysis will evaluate trolley frequencies and all 92 bus routes for potential cuts or improvements, with results expected in spring 2026.

Fare Increases: MTS officials voted in September 2025 to pursue their first fare increase since 2009, with proposals for somewhere between 10% and 20% increases. This would raise the one-way fare from $2.50 to between $2.75 and $3.00.

However, fare increases face significant equity concerns. County Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe expressed strong concerns, noting that roughly 75% of MTS riders are low-income and stating "I'm not going to continue to do this on the backs of poor people," adding that federal cuts to social services make the timing particularly bad.

Board Chair Stephen Whitburn suggested fare hikes could exempt groups that already get discounts, including seniors, veterans, community college students and others. Montgomery Steppe also suggested targeting fare hikes at higher-income riders, such as those using rapid buses or taking the trolley to Padres games.

MTS officials note that the $72 monthly pass is $38 less than what its value should be today had it kept up with the value of the dollar since 2009. This inflation gap suggests room for fare increases, particularly if low-income riders receive targeted subsidies or exemptions to mitigate the impact on transit-dependent populations.

Sales Tax Ballot Measure: MTS officials voted to delay efforts to seek a sales tax ballot measure from 2026 until at least 2028, with recent polling and research showing that a presidential election year makes more sense for the measure than a midterm year. The proposed half-cent sales tax increase could generate approximately $300 million annually and would be limited to MTS service areas, excluding North County communities served by the North County Transit District.

Transit systems in Los Angeles and San Francisco already benefit from voter-approved sales tax surcharges of 2 cents and 1.5 cents respectively, providing precedent for such measures in California.

Recent Ballot Measure Defeat Reveals Deep Political Divisions

The November 2024 election proved challenging for transit funding in San Diego County and exposed fundamental political tensions about who should pay for public transportation. Measure G, a county-wide half-cent sales tax increase that would have raised an estimated $350 million annually for public transit, highways, and local streets, was narrowly defeated with 51% of voters saying "no."

A KPBS analysis found that if Measure G had been limited to the city of San Diego, it would have passed with 54%, revealing an urban-suburban divide over transit funding priorities. The measure received strong support in densely populated areas near transit lines, including precincts overlapping the UC San Diego campus served by the new Blue Line extension, while more rural and suburban areas opposed it by wide margins.

Measure G was projected to raise $350 million annually, but only 12%, or $42 million, would have funded transit operations — far short of MTS' projected $90 million annual operating deficits starting in 2028. Transit advocates argue a revised measure with greater operations funding allocation could succeed in 2026 or 2028.

The opposition reflected a fundamental objection from taxpayers who don't use the system. Haney Hong, head of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said the measures' performance was about voter trust, noting that Measure E appeared to be failing after its supporters spent more than $1 million to promote it while opponents spent a small fraction of that.

Critics argued that SANDAG cannot be trusted with more taxpayer dollars and that since most San Diego County residents drive, any tax increase should give more funding to streets and highways than public transit. The geographic divide suggests many suburban and rural voters see themselves as subsidizing urban transit they cannot use — a political challenge that must be addressed in any future funding proposal.

The city of San Diego's Measure E, a one-cent sales tax increase for general city infrastructure needs, also failed by a similarly narrow margin, potentially demonstrating voter reluctance to approve multiple competing tax measures simultaneously.

The Chicken-and-Egg Problem: Coverage Gaps and Service Limitations

Beyond the immediate budget crisis lies a more fundamental challenge: MTS faces structural limitations that prevent it from truly substituting for private vehicles, undermining both the case for increased investment and the city's high-density housing policies.

Limited Coverage and Accessibility

The average distance people walk to reach transit in San Diego is 0.75 miles, with approximately 48% walking more than 1 kilometer to their destination. This significantly exceeds the quarter-mile radius transit experts consider the maximum for convenient access, effectively excluding large portions of the city from practical transit use.

The percentage of transit riders who transfer lines at least once is 55%, with 27% transferring at least twice during a single trip. Multiple transfers dramatically reduce transit's competitiveness with driving for most trips, particularly when combined with wait times.

Commute-Centric Design Limits Utility

In San Diego, the average amount of time people spend commuting with public transit is 70 minutes, with over 71% of riders spending more than 2 hours on public transportation every day. This suggests the system remains optimized primarily for traditional commuters rather than flexible, multi-purpose travel that would make car-free living practical.

MTS typically operates with 12-15 minute headways during commute periods on the busiest lines, 30-minute headways during non-commute periods, and 60-minute headways on weekends. Those 60-minute weekend frequencies make transit essentially unusable for spontaneous trips or flexible schedules — the very trips that distinguish true transportation alternatives from commute-only services.

Commuters wait on average 16 minutes for their transit line, with over 47% waiting longer than 20 minutes.

Speed Disadvantages

MTS buses average approximately 11 miles per hour system-wide, while the 215 Rapid bus with dedicated lanes averages 12 miles per hour. When urban transit averages 14.1 mph nationally and average auto travel speed in most American cities is more than 30 mph, transit simply cannot compete with driving for most trips in terms of travel time.

The Shopping Barrier and Merchant Economics

Beyond commuting limitations, grocery shopping via transit presents formidable practical and economic barriers that further constrain transit's viability as a car substitute.

It is challenging to use a combination of public transit and walking to go grocery shopping for several reasons: grocery bags can be heavy and hard to carry on buses, transfers may be required, and wait times can be long depending on when shopping is done.

According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, travel for shopping accounts for 19.6% of all trips in the United States, a share that is almost as large as that of work trips, with 99% of households shopping at grocery stores at least once a week and U.S. households making an average of 2.1 trips to a supermarket each week. This makes shopping a critical use case for any transportation system.

Research reveals the challenge's magnitude. In a 2009 Seattle study of grocery shopping travel behavior, 88% of respondents drove to their grocery stores, whereas only 12% used transit or taxis, walked, biked, or carpooled. Studies in Europe show similar patterns: when the distance from home to the closest grocery store exceeded 325 meters, car usage increased rapidly, and when the distance was longer than 670 meters, the car became the major transportation mode for grocery shopping.

The physical burden disproportionately affects low-income, transit-dependent populations. Families carrying home perishable grocery stores may worry about buying produce, fresh meats, and dairy items for fear that they may spoil on the long trip home. In low-income Bay Area communities where car-ownership rates are low, residents spend extremely long times commuting to grocery stores by public bus, compared to residents in affluent communities who can reach more than three supermarkets by car within 10 minutes round-trip.

The fare structure compounds the problem. With MTS charging $2.50 per one-way trip, a household making multiple shopping trips per week faces significant cumulative costs. While the $6 daily cap and two-hour transfer window provide some relief, households making 2-3 shopping trips weekly could spend $15-30 monthly on transit fares alone for grocery shopping — a meaningful expense for low-income families already struggling with food costs.

This creates a vicious cycle: transit-dependent households often must shop at higher-priced corner stores within walking distance rather than traveling to more affordable supermarkets, effectively paying a "transit tax" through higher food prices even while supposedly saving on car ownership.

Merchant Resistance

Local merchants face economic disincentives to support transit improvements. Retailers often perceive transit users as lower-value customers due to:

• Limited carrying capacity restricting purchase volumes
• Multiple small trips rather than weekly bulk shopping
• Preference for nearby convenience stores over destination supermarkets
• Higher probability of choosing online delivery services over in-store shopping

Most households, especially those experiencing food insecurity, choose their preferred food retailers based on prices rather than proximity, meaning food-insecure households are often transit-dependent yet must travel farther to reach affordable groceries.

This undermines political support for transit investment in commercial corridors. Large-format retailers like Costco and big-box stores — which generate substantial sales tax revenue — cater specifically to automobile-based bulk shopping. These retailers have little incentive to support transit improvements and may actively oppose them if they believe transit-oriented development will attract competing smaller-format stores.

The spatial mismatch between where affordable groceries are sold (suburban big-box stores with ample parking) and where transit-dependent populations live (urban high-density areas) perpetuates the system's inadequacy. Until transit can reliably enable weekly shopping trips comparable to car-based shopping — including the ability to transport bulk purchases — it cannot serve as a complete car substitute, undermining the viability of parking-free high-density housing developments.

The Vicious Cycle

These limitations create a self-reinforcing problem:

1. Limited coverage and slow speeds discourage "choice riders" (those who own cars)
2. System remains dependent on transit-captive riders, limiting revenue growth
3. Low revenue prevents service expansion and improvement
4. Inadequate service undermines political support for funding increases
5. Without funding, service cannot expand to become useful to broader population

Meanwhile, the city continues approving high-density housing developments with reduced or eliminated parking requirements, based on the assumption that residents can rely on transit. But without comprehensive coverage, high frequency, competitive speeds, and robust off-peak and weekend service, transit cannot realistically substitute for private vehicles for most residents' needs.

This creates political backlash from residents in new high-density developments who find themselves forced into car ownership despite living in "transit-oriented" housing, while suburban residents who see no benefit from either transit or density oppose funding for both.

---

SIDEBAR: Alternative Fare Structures Could Address Shopping Barrier

The shopping barrier could be partially addressed through restructuring MTS's flat-fare system to better accommodate multiple short trips versus fewer long trips — a distinction that significantly affects grocery shopping behavior.

New York City's Flat Fare with Fare Capping

NYC charges a flat fare of $2.90 for most riders on subways and local buses regardless of distance, with a 7-Day Unlimited Ride pass for $34 and a 30-Day Unlimited Ride pass for $132. More significantly, as of August 2023, NYC implemented a rolling 7-day fare cap where riders pay $2.90 for their first 11 trips and $2.10 for their 12th trip within any seven-day period, after which they ride free for the rest of that week.

This structure benefits frequent shoppers making multiple short trips. A household making three shopping trips per week would pay $8.70 weekly ($34.80 monthly), automatically capping at $34 every four weeks — providing predictable costs without requiring upfront purchase of monthly passes that low-income households may struggle to afford.

Washington DC's Distance-Based Fares

DC Metro Metrorail fares range from $2.25 (minimum) to $6.75 (maximum) as of 2025, with fares determined by distance using composite mileage (average of track miles and straight-line distance), with peak hours on weekdays charging higher fares than off-peak. The system offers free Metrobus to Metrobus transfers within a 2-hour period, and Metrobus to Metrorail transfers receive a $2.25 discount within a 2-hour period.

Distance-based pricing rewards short trips — exactly what grocery shoppers make. A transit-dependent household shopping at a store one mile away would pay minimum fare ($2.25 off-peak) versus a "choice rider" commuting ten miles paying $5-6. This creates equity: those making essential short trips to neighborhood stores pay less, while longer-distance commuters (who often have more transportation options) pay more.

Implications for San Diego

MTS's current structure charges $2.50 per one-way trip with a $6 daily cap, treating a one-mile grocery trip the same as a 26-mile Blue Line commute from the border to UTC. This penalizes precisely the short, frequent trips that characterize car-free living.

Alternative approaches could include:

1. Distance-based fares (DC model): Charge $1.50-2.00 for trips under 3 miles, $2.50 for mid-range trips, and $3.50-4.00 for the longest cross-county trips. This would dramatically reduce costs for grocery shopping and neighborhood errands while maintaining revenue from long-distance commuters.

2. Rolling weekly cap (NYC model): Implement a 7-day rolling cap at $30-35 that automatically provides unlimited rides after 12-13 trips. This eliminates the cash-flow barrier of buying monthly passes upfront while providing the same value to frequent riders.

3. Hybrid approach: Combine distance-based fares with weekly capping, so short-trip users pay less per trip but still benefit from frequency discounts.

Any restructuring would need careful revenue modeling — MTS's current 56% farebox recovery ratio is already the best among light rail systems nationally, and officials cannot afford significant fare revenue losses given the projected $120 million deficits. However, if lower per-trip costs for short trips increased ridership sufficiently, total fare revenue could remain stable or even increase.

Merchant and Development Benefits

A fare structure favoring short trips could transform merchant economics. If grocery shopping cost $3-4 round-trip instead of $5, transit-dependent households might shop more frequently at destination supermarkets rather than expensive corner stores, increasing their purchasing power. Meanwhile, merchants in transit corridors would see customers with greater carrying capacity (shopping carts become practical when trips are cheap) and higher visit frequency.

This could shift merchant attitudes toward transit investment. Rather than viewing transit riders as low-value customers, retailers might recognize them as a market segment worth serving — particularly if high-density, car-free housing developments proceed with guaranteed frequent transit access at reasonable per-trip costs.

The political challenge remains: restructuring fares to benefit frequent short-trip users (disproportionately low-income) while potentially increasing costs for occasional long-distance riders (disproportionately higher-income "choice riders") requires both careful equity analysis and skillful communication about who benefits and why.

Technical Feasibility: PRONTO System Already Enables Advanced Fare Structures

Critically, MTS already possesses the technological infrastructure necessary to implement distance-based fares, rolling weekly caps, or hybrid structures with minimal additional investment.

The PRONTO system, launched in September 2021, already uses "best fare" (fare capping) technology that automatically calculates the best possible fare: when riders tap or scan, a one-way fare is deducted from their balance, and once they reach the value of a Day Pass ($6), the card stops being charged for the rest of that calendar day; likewise, riders are never charged more than a Month Pass ($72) regardless of trips taken in a calendar month.

PRONTO introduced fare capping branded as "Best Fare," allowing card users to earn a daily or monthly pass by paying single fares, with the system managed by INIT and valid on all MTS and North County Transit District services.

The system already tracks:

• Individual trip times (for the 2-hour transfer window)
• Daily fare accumulation (for the $6 daily cap)
• Monthly fare accumulation (for the $72 monthly cap)
• Account-based balances across physical cards and mobile apps

Implementing Distance-Based Fares

Adding distance-based pricing would require modest software modifications. The system already knows:

• Where riders board (tap-on location)
• Where riders exit trolleys (tap-off at station validators)
• Trip duration (for transfer eligibility)

For trolleys, implementing distance-based fares is straightforward since the system already requires tap-off. For buses, MTS would need to either:

1. Require tap-off (as many systems do)
2. Charge maximum fare and refund difference when riders tap next trip
3. Use GPS-based fare calculation (technology PRONTO already supports)

Implementing Rolling Weekly Caps

Rolling 7-day caps (like NYC's system) would be even simpler — the PRONTO back-end already tracks ride frequency and dates for monthly capping. Extending this to rolling 7-day windows instead of calendar months is a trivial software modification that INIT, the system operator, has likely implemented for other transit agencies.

Revenue Management Capabilities

PRONTO is an account-based system where "when you ride, the one-way fare will be deducted from the card you use — physical or virtual on your phone," with fares automatically capped to never exceed a day pass in a calendar day or month pass in a calendar month.

This account-based architecture means MTS can:

• Model fare structure changes before implementation
• Test new fare structures with pilot populations
• Implement changes system-wide with software updates (no hardware replacement needed)
• Track revenue impacts in real-time
• Adjust pricing dynamically based on actual usage patterns

No Capital Investment Required

Unlike legacy magnetic-stripe systems that would require replacing every farebox and validator to change fare structures, PRONTO's modern architecture means fare policy changes are largely software-driven. The $2 PRONTO card fee and existing validator infrastructure can support virtually any fare structure MTS chooses to implement.

This dramatically lowers the barrier to addressing the shopping problem through fare restructuring. The technology is already deployed, paid for, and operational. The only requirements are:

1. Policy decision on new fare structure
2. Revenue impact modeling
3. Software configuration changes
4. Public communication campaign

The main obstacle is no longer technical feasibility but rather political will and careful revenue modeling to ensure any restructuring doesn't exacerbate the $120 million budget deficit.

---

Comparative Performance: Regional Context

Service Speed: MTS buses average approximately 11 miles per hour system-wide, while the 215 Rapid bus with dedicated lanes averages 12 miles per hour. This compares to San Francisco SFMTA buses averaging 8.2 miles per hour and an average of 11 miles per hour nationally.

Regional Comparison: San Diego MTS serves 119,200 weekday riders with 65 miles of rail coverage. By comparison, Seattle's Sound Transit serves 84,500 weekday riders with 28.7 miles of rail, while Portland's TriMet serves 72,200 weekday riders with 59.7 miles of rail coverage.

Potential Paths Forward: Breaking the Cycle

Transit experts and advocates have identified several strategies that could potentially break San Diego's transit investment deadlock, though each faces significant implementation challenges.

Targeted Geographic Investment

Rather than attempting system-wide improvements, concentrate resources on creating one or two "showcase corridors" with transformative service quality. Transit agencies that implement basic dedicated bus-only lanes can deliver 25 percent faster commute times, with the El Cajon Boulevard dedicated bus-only lane costing only $100,000 to implement using painted pavement markings.

By providing 7.5-minute frequencies, dedicated lanes with signal priority, and 24-hour service on select high-density corridors, MTS could demonstrate the viability of car-free living and build political support for broader expansion. MTS is already moving in this direction, with extra Trolley service on nights and weekends starting late January, and a new overnight express bus route between San Ysidro and downtown — making MTS a 24-hour operation.

Align Development Policy with Transit Reality

Stop approving high-density housing without parking in areas that lack high-quality transit service. Create official "Transit Priority Zones" where parking requirements can be reduced or eliminated, while requiring parking in developments outside these zones. This would break the cycle where residents are forced into car ownership despite living in nominally "transit-oriented" developments.

Smarter Revenue Mechanisms

The proposed half-cent sales tax increase would be limited to areas served by MTS; North County communities would be excluded because they are served by the North County Transit District.

Future ballot measures could go further by only taxing areas within walking distance of quality transit service, or creating variable rates based on service quality. Alternative approaches include developer impact fees for parking-free housing, or congestion pricing with revenue dedicated to transit.

Multi-Agency Coordination

Making the bus faster will require coordination between all of these agencies to succeed — transit agencies cannot make these improvements on their own because while transit agencies operate buses, cities control streets within their borders, and SANDAG controls both capital and operational funding.

A unified approach with authority to implement dedicated bus lanes across jurisdictional boundaries, coordinate signal timing citywide, and override local opposition to transit improvements could achieve the network effects necessary for transformative service quality.

Technology and Long-Term Efficiency

Japan is running driverless bus service around the country, and Jacksonville, Fla., recently launched an autonomous downtown circulator bus line. While autonomous vehicles remain years away from widespread deployment, they could potentially reduce labor costs (which account for a significant portion of the 40% wage increases driving MTS's deficit), enable more frequent service at lower cost, and provide flexible routing to fill coverage gaps.

Strategic Political Coalition Building

The KPBS analysis finding that Measure G would have passed with 54% if limited to the city of San Diego suggests urban voters support transit funding. A revised 2028 ballot measure that focuses primarily on operations rather than capital projects, clearly demonstrates where improvements will occur, addresses SANDAG trust issues, and targets the presidential election for higher Democratic turnout could potentially succeed where Measure G failed.

Infrastructure Expansion and Deferred Improvements

The Blue Line's November 2021 extension from Old Town to UTC mall, serving Clairemont, Pacific Beach, La Jolla, and University City, has made it one of the busiest light rail lines in the nation. The new Copper Line opened in September 2024, operating as a shuttle between El Cajon Transit Center and Santee station.

Despite these successes, planned improvements face delays. The system plans to delay its transition to an electric bus fleet and postpone plans to move to 7.5-minute service along the Blue Line extension as part of budget-balancing measures — postponing exactly the kind of frequency improvements that could make transit competitive with driving.

Broader Context: National Transit Funding Crisis

San Diego's financial challenges mirror those facing transit agencies nationwide. Post-pandemic travel pattern changes, the exhaustion of federal stimulus funding, and rising labor costs have created structural deficits across major metropolitan areas.

However, San Diego's situation is uniquely challenging because its efficient operations and strong ridership recovery should position it as a success story — yet it still cannot generate sufficient revenue to meet even basic operational needs, much less expand to the comprehensive coverage required to truly compete with private vehicles.

The fundamental question is whether voters view public transit as a public good that benefits the entire community (like schools or fire departments that not everyone uses but everyone supports) or as a service primarily benefiting a specific user group. San Diego's 51-49% split on Measure G suggests the region is almost evenly divided on this question.

For San Diego, the next several years will determine whether the region can preserve its transit recovery momentum through fare increases and operational efficiencies, secure new dedicated revenue through a 2028 ballot measure, expand coverage and frequency sufficiently to serve high-density development, or whether budget constraints will force a retreat from recent gains — potentially undermining both transit and smart-growth housing policies simultaneously.

The stakes extend beyond transit operations. A 2015 joint study by Harvard University and NYU identified length of commute as the single strongest factor in escaping poverty, with access to transportation contributing to upward mobility by providing access to school, job opportunities, and basic needs. For the approximately 75% of MTS riders who are low-income, service reductions could have cascading effects on economic opportunity and quality of life — while service expansions could unlock economic mobility for tens of thousands of residents.

Without breaking the chicken-and-egg cycle through strategic, concentrated investment in showcase corridors that demonstrate transit's viability, San Diego risks perpetuating car dependency while simultaneously pursuing housing policies that assume comprehensive transit alternatives that don't yet exist.

---

---

Sources

Official Agency Documents and Releases

1. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "MTS Ridership Continues Growth Streak, Surging by 5.5 Million in Latest Fiscal Year." August 20, 2025. https://www.sdmts.com/inside-mts/media-center/news-releases/mts-ridership-continues-growth-streak

2. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "MTS Ridership Jumped by 10 Percent in Fiscal Year 2024." August 22, 2024. https://www.sdmts.com/inside-mts/media-center/news-releases/mts-ridership-jumped-10-percent-fiscal-year-2024

3. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "Transit Triumphs: Celebrating MTS's Successes in 2024." December 30, 2024. https://www.sdmts.com/rider-info/rider-insider/transit-triumphs-celebrating-mtss-successes-2024

4. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "Riding the Comeback Train (Or Trolley): Ridership Passes 81 Million." September 10, 2025. https://www.sdmts.com/rider-info/rider-insider/riding-comeback-train-or-trolley-ridership-passes-81-million

5. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "San Diego MTS Survey Results Show Strong Customer Satisfaction, High Community Value." April 30, 2025. https://www.sdmts.com/inside-mts/media-center/news-releases/san-diego-mts-survey-results-show-strong-customer

6. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "MTS Board Greenlights Fiscal Year 2026 Budget, Ensuring Service Level Continuity." May 19, 2025. https://www.sdmts.com/inside-mts/media-center/news-releases/mts-board-greenlights-fiscal-year-2026-budget-ensuring

7. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "Fare Chart." February 10, 2025. https://www.sdmts.com/fares/fare-chart

8. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "MTS Funding 101." https://www.sdmts.com/rider-info/rider-insider/mts-funding-101

9. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "Market Analysis: Transit Optimization Plan." https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/attachments/market_analysis_report.pdf

10. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "Fiscal Year 2024 Operating Budget." https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/attachments/fy24-operating-budget.pdf

11. San Diego Association of Governments. "Budget." https://www.sandag.org/funding/budget

12. San Diego Association of Governments. "Regional Transportation Improvement Program." https://www.sandag.org/funding/funding-and-programming/regional-transportation-improvement-program

13. San Diego Association of Governments. "TransNet." https://www.sandag.org/funding/transnet

News Media Coverage

14. Garrick, David. "San Diego transit at a crossroads? MTS boasts robust ridership recovery — but faces financial crisis." San Diego Union-Tribune, December 3, 2024. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/12/03/san-diego-transit-at-a-crossroads-mts-boasts-robust-ridership-recovery-but-faces-financial-crisis/

15. Garrick, David. "San Diegans might vote soon on a sales tax hike to fund transit. What could it pay for?" San Diego Union-Tribune, May 30, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/05/30/san-diegans-might-vote-soon-on-a-sales-tax-hike-to-fund-transit-what-could-it-pay-for/

16. Garrick, David. "MTS will seek transit fare hikes and service cuts instead of a ballot measure." San Diego Union-Tribune, September 4, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/09/04/mts-will-seek-transit-fare-hikes-and-service-cuts-instead-of-a-ballot-measure/

17. FOX 5 San Diego. "San Diego MTS considering fare increase, tax measure as 'budget crisis' looms." February 17, 2025. https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/mts-considering-fare-increase-tax-measure-as-budget-crisis-looms/

18. FOX 5 San Diego. "San Diego MTS approves budget for next year as financial crisis looms." May 16, 2025. https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/mts-approves-budget-for-next-year-as-financial-crisis-looms/

19. Metro Magazine. "San Diego MTS Ridership Continues Growth." August 20, 2025. https://www.metro-magazine.com/10246085/san-diego-mts-ridership-continues-growth

20. Times of San Diego. "MTS approves $473.1 million budget, but faces future 'fiscal cliff'." May 15, 2025. https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2025/05/15/mts-approves-473-1-million-budget-faces-future-fiscal-cliff/

21. The UCSD Guardian. "Amid $100 million deficit, MTS approves fare increase study, potential sales tax ballot measure, and delays planned improvements." March 10, 2025. https://ucsdguardian.org/2025/03/10/amid-100-million-deficit-mts-approves-fare-increase-study-potential-sales-tax-ballot-measure-and-delays-planned-improvements/

Election Coverage

22. KPBS. "Measure G failure shows urban-suburban divide over funding for public transit." November 23, 2024. https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2024/11/19/measure-g-failure-shows-urban-suburban-divide-over-funding-for-public-transit

23. Ballotpedia. "San Diego County, California, Measure G, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Safety Projects Sales Tax Measure (November 2024)." https://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_County,_California,_Measure_G,_Infrastructure,_Transportation,and_Safety_Projects_Sales_Tax_Measure(November_2024)

24. CBS 8 San Diego. "Live Election Results for San Diego County Measure G." November 5, 2024. https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/politics/elections/san-diego-measure-g-live-election-results/509-817600aa-d139-46b4-8d4e-bc98041b1e1a

25. Axios San Diego. "Measure G failure derails SANDAG transit plans." November 25, 2024. https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2024/11/25/sandag-measure-g-transportation-airport-funding

Analysis and Commentary

26. Joffe, Marc and Joshi, Anirudh. "Opinion: San Diego MTS more cost-effective than California transit peers." San Diego Union-Tribune, September 11, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/09/11/opinion-san-diego-mts-more-cost-effective-than-california-transit-peers/

27. Voice of San Diego. "San Diego Subsidizes Transit Less Than Most U.S. Cities. That's an Opportunity." March 16, 2022. https://voiceofsandiego.org/2017/12/20/san-diego-subsidizes-transit-less-u-s-cities-thats-opportunity/

28. California Policy Center. "The Cost of Transit in California." September 5, 2025. https://californiapolicycenter.org/reports/the-cost-of-transit-in-california/

29. Streetsblog California. "OpEd: San Diego Should Put Transit Funding Measure Back on 2026 Ballot." May 6, 2025. https://cal.streetsblog.org/2025/05/06/oped-san-diego-should-put-transit-funding-measure-back-on-2026-ballot

30. Circulate San Diego. "Fast Bus!" https://www.circulatesd.org/fast_bus

Reference Data and Comparative Analysis

31. Moovit Public Transit Index. "Public transit facts & statistics for San Diego." https://moovitapp.com/insights/en/Moovit_Insights_Public_Transit_Index_United_States_San_Diego_CA-582

32. The Antiplanner. "Reason #1 Why Americans Don't Ride Transit: Transit Is Slow." https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=12694

33. Smart Cities Dive. "Transit report card shows sub-par performance in San Francisco." July 31, 2018. https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/transit-report-card-shows-sub-par-performance-in-san-francisco/528972/

34. Think Tennessee. "Summary of Transit Systems in the 35 Largest US Metropolitan Regions." https://www.thinktennessee.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/transit-research-report-tables_logo.pdf

35. Greater Greater Washington. "Does Metro ask riders to pay too much?" https://ggwash.org/view/30154/does-metro-ask-riders-to-pay-too-much

36. Wikipedia. "San Diego Metropolitan Transit System." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Metropolitan_Transit_System

37. Wikipedia. "Farebox recovery ratio." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

38. BUSRide. "San Diego public transit comes of age." October 1, 2014. https://busride.com/transit-authority-10/

San Diego transit at a crossroads? MTS boasts robust ridership recovery — but faces financial crisis – San Diego Union-Tribune