What It Will Take to Put Transit on Solid Ground?

This post is part of a series spotlighting ten stories from Mobility 10X: Accelerating Transportation Innovation in California, a research magazine highlighting key insights from the four-year, multi-campus Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative (RIMI). Drawing on research from UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, and UCLA, the series explores innovative solutions to California’s most pressing transportation challenges and the path from research to real-world impact. Read the full Mobility 10X magazine to explore all ten stories.

In October 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), which overrides local zoning restrictions within a half mile of major public transit stations and permits multifamily housing developments of roughly four to nine stories. The law is expected to increase housing supply and bolster public transit ridership and revenue by placing more potential riders near transit stops and stations. Researchers with the University of California’s Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative (RIMI) note that SB 79 is just one of many changes needed to stabilize public transit finances.

“The state of public transit finance is not great,” says Jacob L. Wasserman, the public transit research program manager with the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. “Ridership recovery post-COVID has been uneven, so without reform, many systems will need to cut service.”

California’s cities thrive when their public transit systems operate efficiently and effectively. High-quality transit connects travelers to places, reduces greenhouse gas emissions by shifting cars away from roads, supports the economy by improving job accessibility and increasing property values, and ensures mobility for people who cannot drive or do not have access to a car. RIMI researchers emphasize that fostering robust, well-financed transit systems in the state’s largest cities can also support efforts to address California’s affordable housing crisis and boost public transit ridership, especially if transit agencies modernize and improve their operations.

Land use policy is a critical, long-overlooked factor in public transit success

Michael Manville, a professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, studied land-use challenges in Los Angeles long before SB 79. In a 2023 paper¹ that analyzed multifamily developments near transit hubs in LA, he found that a key barrier was local governments’ reliance on discretionary permitting processes, which often delay project approvals. Manville argues that adopting “by-right” approvals—a more predictable and streamlined permitting approach—could help encourage the development of more multifamily housing.

John Gahbauer, a research consultant with the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, was part of a research team that surveyed and facilitated multiple discussions with a panel of 18 experts on transportation and land-use policy. He co-authored two reports^2,3 on the panel’s findings. The panel identified a lack of public trust as a major barrier to land-use reforms that support public transit, noting that past transportation projects often displaced housing in historically Black and Latino neighborhoods. To rebuild trust, the panel recommended that state agencies and local governments invest in repairing and restoring harmed communities and make the permitting process more transparent and inclusive of public input.

Gahbauer also contributed to a report on the future of transportation and urban planning in California,⁴ which found that public transit subsidies often favor large capital projects that expand service rather than maintaining and improving existing systems. While new stations and rail lines are easy to promote, this emphasis on the latest project can gradually erode the value of current public transit investments. The report concludes that improving existing service and encouraging denser development near transit hubs would be far more effective in enhancing service quality, boosting ridership, and strengthening public support for transit.

Fiscal outlooks have flipped post-pandemic

In 2019, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system was among the most financially self-sufficient public transit agencies in the United States. Data submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) show that fares covered some 72% of BART’s operating expenses in the final fiscal year before the pandemic. The following year, shelter-in-place orders and the widespread shift to remote work sharply reduced ridership and fare revenue. BART’s ridership has only partially recovered since then. BART’s monthly ridership report shows that average weekday ridership in 2025 was around 180,000—less than half of pre-pandemic levels. As a result, public transit systems like BART, which once relied less on operating subsidies, now struggle to balance their books. A 2023 RIMI study⁵ found that federal pandemic stimulus funds were a critical lifeline to keep transit agencies financially afloat.

Taylor studied^6,7 ridership trends from 2010 to 2020 and found that the outlook for public transit was already troubling even before the pandemic. Heavy use of BART during peak commute hours made it easy to overlook deepening ridership declines and rising costs during off-peak periods, both on BART and across most other transit systems in California. Operating costs—driven largely by labor expenses—continued to increase, while higher fare revenues from peak-hour travel couldn’t keep pace with total operating expenses.

Yet cutting labor costs to balance transit agency budgets could be disastrous for the long-term sustainability of the transit workforce. In recent years, agencies have already had to raise pay to address severe worker shortages that worsened after the pandemic. For over a decade prior, inflation-adjusted wages for California’s frontline transit workers—such as bus drivers and train operators—had remained largely stagnant.

Recruiting and retaining workers is further complicated by the demanding nature of the job. As part of a statewide study of the transit workforce, Wasserman interviewed a wide range of stakeholders, including drivers.⁸ Public transit workers described high stress levels driven by long hours and increasing safety concerns, as well as the growing expectation that they serve as social workers, first responders, and rule enforcers while simultaneously operating their vehicles.

With many California public transit agencies facing both fiscal cliffs and labor shortages, exploring new fare and funding models has become increasingly urgent. Taylor studied programs offering free or reduced transit passes and found that, while they can boost ridership, they also raise operational costs.⁹ These discussions often blur the distinction between commuter-focused transit systems, which rely heavily on fares and smaller, social-service-oriented systems that generally do not. Taylor concludes that implementing a universal free-fare policy would require rethinking public transit as a basic public service—similar to schools or parks—which may be difficult to justify in terms of effectiveness.

Gahbauer notes that large gains in ridership do not require sweeping changes. He says that most transit services discourage casual and first-time riders by requiring them to decipher confusing fare tables and navigate complicated pass purchases. Gahbauer recommends that public transit agencies coordinate their fare systems and allow riders to pay using mobile apps, credit cards, and proof of payment systems that make it easy to bundle tickets or allow groups to travel together on a single fare. Most current fare structures are designed for solo commuters, he says, and this one-size-fits-all approach can make transit fares relatively high and less appealing for groups traveling together.

The true cost of roads and driving must be tallied

Kari Watkins, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis, says the formula for increasing public transit ridership is straightforward. Based on her global studies of transit use, she finds that higher driving costs lead to higher transit ridership. Watkins points out that a major reason U.S. transit agencies remain chronically underfunded is the widespread practice of hiding or shifting the true costs of driving. This occurs through underpriced parking and a per-gallon gasoline tax that is supposed to cover road maintenance but is often supplemented with additional state and federal funding.

A major RIMI analysis of hundreds of studies on housing availability, travel behavior, and land use policy¹⁰ found that road pricing could offer multiple benefits. Applying dynamic fees—higher during peak congestion and lower during off-peak periods—to heavily trafficked roads could help them operate more smoothly and efficiently. Road pricing could also generate revenue for public transit agencies or rider subsidy programs and, importantly, make public transit a more attractive option for travelers.

Road pricing could gradually replace the gasoline tax, which will generate less revenue for road maintenance as more people switch to electric vehicles. It would also reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and lower greenhouse gas emissions, with more affluent households paying a larger share due to their higher driving rates. Additionally, road pricing could help shift public perceptions by reinforcing the idea that using roads is not free.