For 22-year-old Henry Sanchez, a 25-cent increase in the bus fare makes a big difference.
It used to be $1.50 to get from his home in Bell Gardens to Cerritos College, where he studies. Now, it鈥檚 $1.75 one-way.
鈥淚t really sucks that you have to worry about the price going up, while the quality of the services is going down,鈥� he said at the Metro Rail station in Norwalk this week. 鈥淎nd trying to buy a car is harder, even getting a used car. It鈥檚 risky.鈥�
Does he think the state should step in to help public transit systems avoid fare hikes? It could help, he said 鈥� unless that means higher taxes or the price of other things going up.
Sanchez isn鈥檛 alone in his quandary.
Transit agencies across California are grappling with a 鈥渇iscal cliff鈥� 鈥� a decline in revenue and the end of federal funding that has been a lifeline for the last three years. Without the state stepping in, they say they may have to cut service or increase fares.
That would hit low-income people the hardest, especially those who rely exclusively on transit to get around. Any major changes would also affect commuters, the other regular group of riders.
Transit has been hit by previous downturns, including during the 2008 , but the COVID-19 pandemic took a bigger toll. Ridership was already on the decline as , but dropped dramatically when the pandemic began in March 2020 鈥� and, unlike after the recession, hasn鈥檛 fully recovered.
Statewide, dropped from 100 million in February 2019 to about 20 million in June 2020. As of June 2022, the numbers rebounded to about 60 million, but varied by region and transportation mode.
The fares that riders pay not only help keep buses and trains running, but help agencies qualify for state and federal grants. Transit agencies say that the federal funding they鈥檝e received during the pandemic will run out within two years.
Looking ahead, state regulations that phase out vehicles that use gasoline and diesel fuel will , putting more stress on their finances.
The Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom are drafting next year鈥檚 budget, and to help cover a deficit projected to be as much as $25 billion, Newsom is proposing delays and cuts to some transit expansions and equipment programs. That , but it prompted some lawmakers to call for the state to step in with more money 鈥� while others are hoping transit agencies will be held more accountable for how they鈥檝e spent funds.
It鈥檚 a pivotal moment for not only current services, but for the long-term future of transit in the state.
鈥淭his is a moment that is making all the difficulties that we have been having for years in public transportation in the U.S. really kind of come up,鈥� said Giovanni Circella, a program director at UC Davis鈥� Institute of Transportation Studies.
There鈥檚 also the climate angle: California鈥檚 transportation sector accounts for about 40% of the .
Getting more people out of their own gas-powered cars is essential to meeting the state Air Resources Board鈥檚 goal to 48% below 1990 levels by 2030. In 2018, the that calls for all new buses to be carbon-free by 2029.
Compared to a car with only a driver, subways produce 76% less in greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile, light rail systems 62% less, and buses 33% less, . Those are averages; the environmental payoff from public transit depends on the number of passengers and the type of fuel used..
Public transportation in the United States saved 63 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2018 鈥� the equivalent of taking 16 coal power plants offline for a year, from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
鈥淎 focus on farebox recovery somewhat misses the mark on what transit agencies are actually doing,鈥� said Michael Pimentel, executive director of the California Transit Association, which represents transit agencies. 鈥淓fficiency is an important criteria, but so, too, are environmental benefits and making advances on equity.鈥�
To really reap the climate benefits and get cars off the road, California鈥檚 public transit systems need to be popular and running efficiently 鈥� and that isn鈥檛 happening in many places.
Here鈥檚 how we got here 鈥� and what some suggest can be done.
The problems (and it鈥檚 not just money)
Transit agencies rely on a mix of funding sources 鈥� federal grants, state funding, revenue from local taxes and passenger fares.
The agencies that rely more heavily on fares are the ones in the most dire situations. That includes Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Francisco鈥檚 MUNI and Los Angeles Metro.
BART ridership dropped from more than 118 million in fiscal year 2019 to about 35 million in 2022, according to the agency. In 2019, totaled $520 million, funding 66% of its operations. That number dropped to 12% in 2021, and rebounded slightly last year to 21%, with passenger fares and parking totaling $147 million.
The agency received of emergency federal aid. Initial funding was limited to spending specifically on COVID-19 measures, such as emergency protective gear for employees and covering administrative leaves, but later grants allowed spending on operations. And while that funding has helped restore service to pre-pandemic levels, the system still encounters delays and cancellations, in part due to .
According to Brian Taylor, director of UCLA鈥檚 Institute of Transportation Studies, many transit operators , such as trucking. A national survey by the American Public Transportation Association in March 2022 , while 45% left for jobs outside of the transit industry.
Taylor said one factor behind the departures is that drivers don鈥檛 want to take on the increasing role of policing behavior 鈥� first and later dealing with growing mental health, drug and homelessness crises showing up on public transit.
Those problems aren鈥檛 just keeping transit drivers away. At a legislative committee hearing in March, transit agency officials said the issues are also .
Since Jan. 1, 26 people have from suspected drug overdoses 鈥� already . And serious crimes 鈥� such as robbery, rape and aggravated assault 鈥� were up 24% compared to 2022.
Safety concerns add to the longstanding issues that discourage people from using public transit: how long trips take, the inconvenience of getting to a station and delays or interruptions.
It doesn鈥檛 help that some transit agencies are not being managed very well.
revealed conflict-of-interest violations, a BART employee who faked work hours and a that got only one person into a residential treatment facility after two years, according to local press reports.
In 2022, the Alameda County Grand Jury found the agency鈥檚 board, management and unions engaged in a 鈥減attern of obstruction鈥� against its Office of the Inspector General, which oversaw those probes.
The string of problems prompted State Sen. , a Democrat from Orinda and a vocal BART critic, to resign from a legislative select committee that is advocating for more state transit funding.
BART, said Glazer, is beset by 鈥渁 breakdown of all kinds of levels.鈥�
鈥淚t鈥檚 not just about the trains, it鈥檚 a breakdown in their safety, a breakdown in oversight. It鈥檚 violations of the law.鈥� it鈥檚 on trains, you know, 鈥� the cost overruns, the delays,鈥� he said.
鈥淚鈥檓 not supportive of bailing out BART when they refuse to have fiscal oversight through a fully functioning ,鈥� he added.
In response, BART spokesperson Jim Allison said the agency supports independent oversight, and that officials 鈥渓earned a lesson鈥� from their contract with the Salvation Army.
鈥淭he outgoing inspector general is an expert in finding fraud and abuse and waste. She does not have any experience in terms of operating a railroad,鈥� he said.
Allison also said the 鈥渇iscal cliff鈥� BART is facing is due to high fixed costs rather than mismanagement. 鈥淲e鈥檙e not going to be able to cut our way out of this financial crisis,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e just have naturally built-in costs that we need to address to keep the system in a state of good repair.鈥�
BART isn鈥檛 the only agency to come under fire.
Assemblymember , a Democrat from Palo Alto, of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, based on concerns about the agency鈥檚 leadership that he said resulted in operational and financial issues.
But not everyone finds the future of public transit in California as bleak.
San Jose-based advocate Monica Mallon disagreed with Berman鈥檚 call for the audit, saying that while VTA has handled its finances poorly in the past, it has learned from its mistakes. And no agency should be punished for external factors such as the pandemic, she added.
鈥淚f we let agencies fall off this cliff, it鈥檚 going to be really hard to get transit back in the future,鈥� Mallon said. 鈥淎nd then everybody鈥檚 going to be in traffic and complaining.鈥�
In Sacramento, Dan Allison, an action team member of Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders, said Regional Transit鈥檚 outlook doesn鈥檛 seem as dire as some other agencies鈥� and has improved service over the years.
Like Sacramento, the Humboldt County transit authority is less dependent on fares for operations. Money is always an issue, said Greg Pratt, general manager, but the authority still plans to cut fares to attract new riders after a decline during the pandemic.
The solutions (and it鈥檚 mostly money)
Short-term solutions include more state money for 鈥渂ridge funding鈥� to help transit agencies avoid the 鈥渇iscal cliff.鈥�
California鈥檚 largest systems receive less state support than other systems of their size nationally, according to an analysis by the nonprofit policy group . In 2019, the state鈥檚 largest operators received 5% to 22% of operating funding from the state, whereas large systems in other states received 28% to 50%.
The financial crisis should not come as a shock to the state, according to Eli Lipmen, executive director of rider advocacy group Move LA. 鈥淲e knew this was coming,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e in a new paradigm where we need to rethink how we fund public transit because it can鈥檛 necessarily be funded by a farebox.鈥�
The California State Transportation Agency said it is 鈥渁ware of the challenges that transit operators are facing as the state transitions to a post-pandemic transit environment鈥� and while Newsom鈥檚 budget does not include any money for transit operations, it hopes to continue working toward solutions that 鈥渨ill preserve and improve the state鈥檚 transit system and work toward long-term financial stability.鈥�
It鈥檚 typically an easier sell for agencies to score funding for expansion projects from the state. But the Legislature could also change the law to temporarily allow some project and equipment funding to be used for operations, as the Legislative Analyst鈥檚 Office .
That doesn鈥檛 include shifting any , though, because the voter-approved bond measure that funds it can only be used for that purpose.
There鈥檚 also the option of local ballot measures to increase funding, but they take time, and voter approval isn鈥檛 guaranteed.
The , which serves nine Bay Area counties, may put a before voters in 2026. (That worked in Los Angeles County in 2016, when voters overwhelmingly approved a permanent expected to raise $120 billion over 40 years).
But just filling short-term funding gaps won鈥檛 be enough.
Researchers, lawmakers and advocates agree that the future of public transit is tied to the recovery of downtowns. That means revising zoning and development laws 鈥� for example, building housing closer to transit, and easing parking requirements that increase the cost of those units.
In downtown San Francisco, for instance, the , and that trend isn鈥檛 likely to end soon. One option would be to convert office space into housing, though that .
Some also call for fixes to the transit funding model, itself.
According to a February report from , although populations and mobility patterns have changed since the Transportation Development Act was enacted in 1971, the law and its related programs have kept the same eligibility conditions based on counties and their populations in 1970. The outdated population numbers may also explain why transit agencies have increased in number: three of California鈥檚 four largest regions have fewer people per agency than the national average.
At the legislative hearing in February, state Sen. , a Fremont Democrat on the transportation committee, inquired about consolidation of transit agencies. UCLA鈥檚 researchers also called for better coordination of State Transit Assistance funding, and revamping how agencies are evaluated.
But not everyone is on board with investing more money into transit.
Assembly Republican Leader , from Chico, about the state bailing out a service that 鈥渄idn鈥檛 pencil out before COVID,鈥� 鈥渟hirks oversight and allows fraud, and no one wants to ride because of drugs and vagrancy.鈥�
Former U.S. Rep. Doug Ose, who ran in the 2021 gubernatorial recall election, also questions why any government should fund a program that 鈥渧ery few people want.鈥�
鈥淲e might as well be buying a horse and buggy for everyone,鈥� . 鈥淧ublic transit is no longer about moving people,鈥� but has 鈥渂ecome a jobs program for bus drivers no one needs.鈥�
For transit to be a viable and attractive option, there are also that have been proposed or put in place: easier , quicker payment options such as Google or Apple Pay, and door-to-door vans and other 鈥渕icrotransit鈥� options to compete with ride-sharing companies.
Move LA also advocates for to 鈥渃reate this next generation of transit riders who can sustain the system going forward,鈥� Lipmen said.
A few agencies have already begun to deploy more police officers or mental health counselors on buses, though some . would require large agencies to start collecting data on harassment of riders.
Assemblymember , a Democrat from Burbank and chairperson of the transportation committee, introduced to make sure social service providers that receive state homelessness grants address the needs of homeless individuals using public transit.
She also introduced a bill that creates a to research and make recommendations on transit funding.
鈥淲e need to reimagine our stations, reimagine how we finance transit and find ways of building in public support,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 past time.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.