Colin Parent is the CEO and general counsel of Circulate San Diego, and is a former councilmember for the city of La Mesa.
20 Years of Voice: For our 20th anniversary, we asked community members, local leaders and thinkers to share their vision for the next 20 years of the San Diego region, and what we can do today to make that vision a reality. You can read all of our anniversary content here.
Transit agencies in San Diego are facing a crossroads. Ridership levels are clawing their way back, but revenues have not kept up with rising costs.
Transit agencies have the tools to improve fare revenues, which can delay or reduce future fare increases. They also need to listen to transit riders themselves, who overwhelmingly prioritize frequent service over cheaper fares. If San Diego’s leaders want a transit system that succeeds into the future, they must make the investments today to preserve and grow our transit network.
Averting the transit ‘death spiral’
Many transit agencies are facing fiscal challenges, with ridership still recovering after 2020. San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) has recovered ridership faster than most of its peers, but it still faces structural deficits. The agency is considering a variety of choices, from service cuts to fare increases.
Over the next 20 years, voters are likely to raise taxes to support more transportation investment, including for transit. That may help keep fares lower in the future, but we should not let our system deteriorate in the meantime.
Raising fares should be avoided for as long as possible, especially for low-income riders. Still, in the long run, fares will increase. Costs for transit agencies have risen in recent years, just as they have for everyone else. Frankly, it is a miracle that fares have stayed so steady for so long.
When asked whether to prioritize service frequency or lower fares, surveys of MTS riders prioritize service frequency. National surveys of transit riders say the same. Reducing service is also a shortsighted way to save money. Less frequent transit attracts fewer riders, leading to a “death spiral,” with reduced revenues leading to more reduced services. Positioning transit for the future requires a virtuous cycle of investing in higher service, and attracting more riders and revenue.
Transit’s technological future
Increasing fares and ridership are not the only way to increase fare revenue. MTS and the North County Transit District recently procured a fare payment system that was about $16 million cheaper than the alternative system under consideration. Unfortunately, the cheaper fare collection system has trouble collecting fares. MTS estimates it loses millions in revenue annually. Updating the system, or holding its vendor accountable, will improve long-term revenues.
Similarly, fare evasion has risen steeply since 2022. The MTS board has struggled to find policies it can support to get all riders to pay their fair share. This is a core challenge for MTS to succeed. There is nothing equitable in allowing some scofflaws to ride for free, while forcing the similarly low-income riders who follow the rules to face higher fares, worse service, or both.
Technology is at the cusp of revolutionizing transportation. Self-driving buses or trolleys may be transformational, allowing agencies to run more frequent service at reduced costs. Still, eliminating the need for a driver will not replace the valuable services transit operators perform, like checking fare payments, helping those with mobility challenges, and performing all manner of customer support.
In an autonomous future, transit staffing levels may well stay the same. Transit operators could be tasked with roaming between a larger fleet of vehicles, to check fares and to deal with the circumstances that only a real human being can usefully address.
Better transit infrastructure benefits everybody
Transit is a hot topic lately, especially because it is a key part of state and local commitments around climate change.
Electric vehicle owners may imagine they do not contribute to climate change, but in San Diego, about half of consumer electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels. In 20 years, hopefully electric vehicles will be exclusively powered by renewable sources, but we are not there today.
Yet it is important to remember that the purpose of public transit has never been primarily about climate change. The core point of transit is to help move people around where they want to go. Transportation choices are essential to almost every human endeavor, from our economic success, to our family and social lives.
The income of most transit riders is substantially below average. Transit is a lifeline for those who cannot afford a car. Still, even the most committed motorist should care about the future of transit. The physical space it takes to move dozens of people on a bus is dramatically less than the same number of people driving individual cars. Replacing transit riders with motorists would dramatically increase traffic, not to mention emissions.
Our region is growing, and anyone caught in traffic understands the limits of our car infrastructure. Helping more people get around within limited space is exactly where transit has an advantage over automobiles. Autonomous cars will not change this geometry problem, but exacerbate the competition for space on our roads. Growing our transit network is necessary for the growth of our economy.
Transit is essential to our region, but it requires careful stewardship for it to succeed. If we listen to riders, and make the right investments, everyone in San Diego can benefit from public transit.
Thoughtful OpEd. Two things spoke to me:
1. On the lack of trust that people have about transit spending;
“MTS and the North County Transit District recently procured a fare payment system that was about $16 million cheaper than the alternative system under consideration. Unfortunately, the cheaper fare collection system has trouble collecting fares. MTS estimates it loses millions in revenue annually”.
Those paid to oversee programs like this, seem to make this very mistake, over and over. They choose the “lowest priced responsible supplier” and this is what they get. Until there is a basic level of competence in purchasing on transit, the public will remain skeptical.
2. We make it more difficult to travel quickly, and believe that does not reflect in longer commute times for people. If a vehicle trip takes 60 minutes instead of 30 minutes that DOUBLES the amount of emissions. If all transit decisions considered the time to travel, that would lower the amount of time on the road for cars, commercial vehicles and busses. That would lower emissions.
So better bike infrastructure is good. Better, smoother & faster road infrastructure in the fastest way to cleaner air.
Thank you for the thoughtful article Colin. Here is to clean air!
Sorry but most of the time I see a giant bus with only 1-5 riders in it. The buses I see are at UTC area. Maybe other areas see more ridership. Having traveled extensively in Europe and seen good transit in densely populated NYC and DC I know it can work well; but I remain skeptical that the routes in SD are worth the cost. It might be cheaper to just supply Uber/Lyft vouchers.
I agree with Steve, and also with “…It might be cheaper to just supply Uber/Lyft vouchers….”
Usually see 0, 1 or 2 rider(s) on the busses around Mira Mesa or on the freeway.
A future option may be automated van service using a cell phone request to pick up riders where they are and deliver them where they want to go (i.e. not require large busses or drivers).
Colin Parent is a shill for the over building political opportunists that want to cram developer driven infill down people’s throats. The MTS budget needs to be cut back to balance the city’s deficit. Not the city council chip away at affordability by stealth taxes like parking meters and the trash tax. MTS will likely raise it’s prices due to the increase in investment.