Category: UC ITS Research Highlights

This post does not include the author block at the top. It does include the featured image at the top of the post which is the same as the image on the card listed on the news page.

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 reports2,3 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.

“If I had a magic wand to fix all of our urban problems, I’d make many dense clusters where people can live and work and then connect them with robust transit services.”

John Gahbauer, UCLA ITS

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.

“The shining stars of transit before the pandemic are often the systems that are really hurting now.”

Brian D. Taylor, Professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy, UCLA Luskin School.

Taylor studied6,7 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.

“A family of four that would otherwise take public transit might find that it’s cheaper to take a ridehailing service.”

John Gahbauer, UCLA ITS

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.

“We heavily subsidize driving, so we can’t be against subsidizing transit as well.”

Kari Watkins, UC Davis

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.

“We spend so much money on freeways in California, nobody ever asks if they make any money.” 

Jacob Wasserman, UCLA

Learn More about Public Transit Finance

As transit agencies confront rising operational and capital costs while simultaneously navigating the looming (or past) expiration of federal relief funds, researchers are exploring new approaches to stabilize revenue and expenditures. Strategies include road pricing, value capture from transit-oriented development, and performance-based funding mechanisms. The financial pressures vary across rural, suburban, and urban contexts, underscoring the need for flexible, locally responsive funding models. At the same time, fare policy innovations introduced during the pandemic raise important questions about affordability, equity, and the potential for more integrated, transferable fare discount programs across agencies. Coupled with efforts to better align transit funding with land use planning, these strategies offer a path toward more sustainable and effective public transportation financing.

1 Manville, M., Monkkonen, P., Gray, N., & Phillips, S. (2022). Does Discretion Delay Development? The Impact of Approval Pathways on Multifamily Housing’s Time to Permit. Journal of the American Planning Association, 89(3), 336–347.

2 Gahbauer, J., Matute, J., Wasserman, J. L, Rios, A., & Taylor, B. D. (2022). Steering California’s Transportation Future: A Report on Possible Scenarios and Recommendations. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies.

3Gahbauer, J., Wasserman, J. L, Matute, J., Rios Gutierrez, A., & Taylor, B. D. (2022). Employing a Modified Delphi Approach to Explore Scenarios for California’s Transportation and Land Use Future.

4 Wasserman, J. L; Taylor, B. D; Gahbauer, J.; Matute, J.; Garrett, M.; Ding, H., et al. (2022). The Future of Transportation and Urban Planning: A California 100 Report on Policies and Future Scenarios. California 100. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies.

5Wasserman, J. L, Gahbauer, J., Siddiq, F., King, H., Ding, H., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). Financing the Future: Examining the Fiscal Landscape of California Public Transit in the Wake of the Pandemic. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies.

6Taylor, B. D; Blumenberg, E.; Wasserman, J. L; Garrett, M.; Schouten, A.; King, H., et al. (2020). Transit Blues in the Golden State: Analyzing Recent California Ridership Trends. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies.

7Jacob L. Wasserman, Brian D. Taylor (2023) State of the BART: Analyzing the Determinants of Bay Area Rapid Transit Use in the 2010s. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 172, 2023, 103663.

8Wasserman, J. L, Padgett, A., & Do, K. (2024). Transit, Belabored: Issues and Futures for California’s Frontline Transit Workforce. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies.

9King, H., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). Considering Fare-Free Transit in The Context of Research on Transit Service and Pricing: A Research Synthesis. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies.

10Chatman, D. G, Barbour, E., Kerzhner, T., Manville, M., & Reid, C. (2023). Policies to Improve Transportation Sustainability, Accessibility, and Housing Affordability in the State of California. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies.

Evaluating and Forecasting Transit Costs
Exploring Transportation Funding and Financing
Free and Reduced Transit Fares
Impacts of COVID-19
Additional Publications Outside of UC ITS

Authors: Brian Taylor, Professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy, UCLA; Kari Watkins, Associate Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, UC Davis; Laura Podolsky, Executive Director, UC Institute of Transportation Studies; Susan Shaheen, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley; Mollie D’Agostino, Executive Director, Mobility Science, Automation and Inclusion Center (MoSAIC)

Summary

Public transit today faces two related core challenges: declining ridership and financial instability. In California, transit ridership mostly decreased in the 2010s, only to fall dramatically during the Covid-19 pandemic.  While some systems have fully recovered their pre-pandemic ridership, most have not due to enduring preferences for remote work (particularly among high-wage workers) and growing traveler concerns (real or perceived) about safety. Falling ridership has meant falling fare revenues and, as a result, many (though not all) transit agencies are approaching a fiscal cliff as pandemic-era state and federal funding lapses. Despite these challenges, transit agencies continue to test strategies for delivering more reliable, affordable, and faster service to customers through innovations like mobility wallets, microtransit, transit ambassador programs, among others. However, it remains unclear whether these efforts will be sufficient to rebuild ridership and restore fare revenues enough to ensure long-term financial stability. While there is general agreement on the critical role of public transit in California’s future, the path forward regarding funding and service evolution is less clear.

Key Insights from UC ITS Research

1. In California, public transit ridership was in decline leading up to the pandemic, largely due to increased auto ownership and the rise of ridehail, but also shifts in where people work and live.

Between 2014 to 2018, California lost over 165 million annual transit boardings, with notable variation across regions, modes, and operators.1 Increased incomes and decreased costs of automobile use combined to increase ownership and use of private vehicles and reduce transit use.  In addition, new services like Lyft and Uber and increased transit fares also combined to shift travelers away from public transit.2,3,4 Additionally, California’s cities and regions have become less self-contained, with fewer workers living in the cities where they work—a trend most pronounced in employment-rich cities with rapidly rising housing costs.5,6,7 Suburban areas, now home to a growing share of residents living below the poverty line, pose unique challenges for transit due to their low densities and dispersed trip origins and destinations.8

2. Public transit ridership recovery has been uneven across California and will likely be slow to recover for systems serving suburb to downtown work trips.

California’s transit ridership trends during the pandemic mirrored national patterns, with sharp declines in 2020, followed by a partial, uneven recovery–reaching 56% of pre-pandemic levels by 2022.9,10 Below this topline, transit ridership losses and recovery were uneven across modes and geographies, pointing to socioeconomic disparities in the ability to work remotely during and after the pandemic. Low-income workers, who are less likely to work remotely, relied more on transit during the pandemic, resulting in smaller ridership declines on systems serving these populations. In contrast, routes serving areas with higher-income workers, high-wage jobs, and greater job accessibility by transit (particularly downtowns) experienced steeper declines.11,12 Remote work trends appear likely to persist to some degree, though this shift to remote work is unlikely to result in less traffic as some may hope.13,14

3. The fiscal outlook for transit agencies in California is mixed.

Federal and state stimulus measures helped many California transit agencies survive the first two years of the pandemic.15 However, the longer-term financial picture varies substantially across transit systems. The systems that have been hit hardest include those with the highest-farebox-recovery rates that carried large numbers of downtown commuters before the pandemic.16 Uncertainty surrounding transit’s financial future has spurred policy debates over whether and how California funds public transit. These debates include possible new streams of transit funding in addition to changing existing transit funding programs, including the state’s Transportation Development Act (TDA). Proposals for updating the TDA to better align service with state goals include eliminating the minimum “farebox recovery ratio” funding eligibility requirement; adjusting transit performance assessments to reflect an agency’s local ridership “market”; using subsidies to more explicitly incentivize performance and efficiency; disbursing funds at the regional level to encourage more service coordination across agencies; and establishing a new fund to help with a transition from a reliance in California on diesel sales tax revenues.17

4. The pandemic presented new challenges to transit agencies, including a rise in unhoused individuals and operator shortages.

A lack of data about the numbers and locations of unhoused riders, combined with a lack of evaluation and information-sharing on response strategies and funding, represents a challenge for agencies wishing to address homelessness on their systems.18 California’s transit agencies have had varying responses to the increase in unhoused individuals on their vehicles, at their stops and stations, and on their rights of way. These can be categorized into several strategies: hub of services (e.g., variety of outreach resources and services for unhoused riders in one or more central points in the city, at or near a major transit facility), mobile outreach (both smaller clinician/social worker programs and larger, comprehensive strategies), discounted fares, and transportation to shelters.19 In addition, many agencies across the state lacked transit operators (e.g., bus drivers, train operators) in the wake of the pandemic, delaying service restoration. Research finds that these shortages were due to compensation issues, competition with commercial trucking for labor, and longstanding issues of workforce safety, culture, and practices in transit.20 While competitive wages are essential for recruiting and retaining transit operators, reforms elsewhere are also needed, including enhancing outreach and recruitment efforts, reforming driver scheduling protocols at many systems, updating disciplinary policies, and solidifying and clarifying pathways for career advancement. 

5. Microtransit may increase ridership, though cost effectiveness and scaling are not without challenges and tradeoffs. 

Microtransit, which typically consists of smaller-than-bus vehicles, like vans, summoned by users and routed by systems in real-time, is operating in over 40 California locations, addressing needs such as serving low-density areas and providing off-peak or late-night service. Functionally, microtransit sits between ridehail service and traditional bus service. While microtransit has the potential to increase transit ridership and access to jobs, it is expensive to provide on a per-trip basis.21,22 Common challenges with microtransit pilot programs include oversubscription leading to long wait and travel times; limited availability and poor connections to fixed-route transit; and finding the right balance between service area size and number of vehicles needed to meet demand.23

6. Micromobility is bouncing back post-pandemic but its role as a so-called “first/last-mile connection” to and from transit is unclear.

Prior to the pandemic, 5–20 percent of all micromobility trips in major California cities were making connections to or from rail transit.24 However, during the pandemic, many local governments made changes that improved micromobility infrastructure (e.g., converting vehicle lanes to active transportation lanes), particularly in the vicinity of public transportation.25 While micromobility ridership data from 20 U.S. cities suggests a weak connection between micromobility usage and overall transit ridership, there were positive associations between micromobility use and rail ridership.26

7. State and local policies and practices can positively influence transit ridership and the rider experience.

Transit remains central to state climate and equity goals, but its ability to meaningfully contribute to those goals depends on whether the state supports regional and local governments in (1) developing more higher-density, walkable, transit-friendly places and (2) managing private vehicle travel through parking policies, road pricing, and the like.  Our future transportation system and the impacts of it hinge importantly on the density and development of transit-supportive housing supply.27 In addition to transit-supportive densities, transit succeeds when it is competitive with other modes, which entails managing those other modes and improving transit operations.28 In addition to managing driving and parking, strategic allocation of streetspace and exclusive right-of-way for transit speed up transit, make transit more reliable, and more attractive to riders.29 Finally, innovation in scheduling and fares, as well as seamless ticketing and travel,30,31 can improve rider experience and satisfaction. It is through these measures that we can achieve the mode shift required for reductions in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) desired by the state.

  1. Taylor, B. D.; Blumenberg, E.; Wasserman, J. L; Garrett, M.; Schouten, A.; King, H., et al. (2020). Transit Blues in the Golden State: Analyzing Recent California Ridership Trends. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32j5j0hb
  2.  Taylor, B.D., et al
  3.  Martin, E., Shaheen, S., & Stocker, A. (2021). Impacts of Transportation Network Companies on Vehicle Miles Traveled, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Travel Behavior Analysis from the Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco Markets. UC Berkeley: Transportation Sustainability Research Center. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2BC3WV9
  4.  Watkins, K., Berrebi, S., Erhardt, G., Hoque, J., Goyal, V., Brakewood, C., … & Kressner, J. (2021). Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. TCRP Research Report, (231).
  5.  Blumenberg, E., & King, H. (2019). Low-income workers, residential location, and the changing commute in the United States. Built Environment, 45(4), 563-581.
  6.  Blumenberg, E., & Siddiq, F. (2023). Commute distance and jobs-housing fit. Transportation, 50(3), 869-891.
  7.  Blumenberg, E., & Wander, M. (2023). Housing affordability and commute distance. Urban Geography, 44(7), 1454-1473.
  8.  Watkins et al., 2021.
  9.  Epstein, J., Gahbauer, J., Wasserman, J. L, & Matute, J. (2022). Changing Transit Ridership and Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T6FC7J Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/02b601tk
  10.  Ziedan, A., Brakewood, C., & Watkins, K. (2023). Will transit recover? A retrospective study of nationwide ridership in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of public transportation, 25, 100046.
  11.  Li, M., Rodríguez, D. A, Pike, S., & McNally, M. (2024). Rail Transit Ridership Changes and COVID-19: Lessons from Station-Area Characteristics. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2G44NNX Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/07b5s42c
  12.  Paul, J., & Taylor, B. D. (2024). Pandemic transit: examining transit use changes and equity implications in Boston, Houston, and Los Angeles. Transportation, 51(2), 615-643.
  13.  Speroni, S., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). The Future of Working Away from Work and Daily Travel: A Research Synthesis. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T64W3D Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/23v094qk
  14.  Circella, G., Iogansen, X., Matson, G., Makino, K., Malik, J. K, & Lee, Y. (2024). Investigating the Temporary and Longer-Term Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mobility in California. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2ZW1J90 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2102b2zq
  15.  Siddiq, F., Wasserman, J. L, & Taylor, B. D. (2022). Surveying the Financial Conditions of California’s Public Transit Operators: An Early to Mid-Pandemic Comparison. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1j60h9pj
  16.  Wasserman, J. L, Gahbauer, J., Siddiq, F., King, H., Ding, H., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). Financing the Future: Examining the Fiscal Landscape of California Public Transit in the Wake of the Pandemic. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T6CC9P Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6r867462
  17.  Gahbauer, J., Matute, J., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). Options for the Future of State Funding for Transit Operations in California. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zb6z5rm
  18.  Wasserman, J. L., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Ding, H., & Caro, R. (2024). A Bus Home: Homelessness in U.S. Transit Environments. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 44(3), 1791-1804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221121612.
  19.  Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Wasserman, J., Ding, H., & Caro, R. (2023). “It Is Our Problem!”: Strategies for Responding to Homelessness on Transit. Transportation Research Record, 2677(2), 1200-1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221111156
  20.  Wasserman, J. L, Padgett, A., & Do, K. (2024). Transit, Belabored: Issues and Futures for California’s Frontline Transit Workforce. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2S180TK Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2036z8c4
  21.  Hyland, M. F; Pike, S.; Hu, S.; Berkel, J.; Xing, Y.; Saha, R., et al. (2024). Integrating Microtransit Service with Traditional Fixed-Route Transit Costs More but Greatly Improves Access to Jobs. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2TH8K2W Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/60t9p45b
  22.  Drake, J., & Watkins, K. (2024). An evaluation of on-demand transit user and interested-non-user characteristics and the factors that attract the transit-curious to using on-demand transit. Travel Behaviour and Society, 37, 100868.
  23.  Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Wolfe, B., & Martin, E. (2024). Communities Are Experimenting with Microtransit to Fill Critical Gaps in Public Transit Service – What Have We Learned so Far? UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2W957JF Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2qs445kh
  24.  Ju, M., Martin, E., & Shaheen, S. (2024). What Is the Connection? Understanding Shared Micromobility Links to Rail Public Transit Systems in Major California Cities. Sustainability, 16(2), 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020555
  25.  Shaheen, S., Martin, E., & Cohen, A. (2024). Local Governments Strategies to Improve Shared Micromobility Infrastructure. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G21G0JM4 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4h04w8m1
  26.  Fukushige, T., Fitch, D. T, Mohiuddin, H., Andersen, H., & Jenn, A. (2022). Micromobility Trip Characteristics, Transit Connections, and COVID-19 Effects. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2639N1X Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2pk6t2cz
  27.  Watkins, K., Berrebi, S., Diffee, C., Kiriazes, B., & Ederer, D. (2020). Analysis of recent public transit ridership trends (No. Project J-11/Task 28).
  28.  Erhardt, G. D., Hoque, J. M., Goyal, V., Berrebi, S., Brakewood, C., & Watkins, K. E. (2022). Why has public transit ridership declined in the United States?. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 161, 68-87.
  29.  Watkins et al., 2021.
  30.  Brakewood, C., & Watkins, K. (2019). A literature review of the passenger benefits of real-time transit information. Transport Reviews, 39(3), 327-356.
  31.  Pike, S., Turner, K., Chin, S., & Nguyen, A. (2024). Open to Open-Loop: Payments Challenges for Public Transit. Findings.

Authors: Susan Shaheen, UC ITS RIMI Director, Professor-In-Residence, UC Berkeley; Laura Podolsky, Executive Director, UC Institute of Transportation Studies

We’re pleased to unveil the Mobility 10x: Accelerating Transportation Innovation in California research magazine, a comprehensive compendium of findings, insights, and actionable research generated by the Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative (RIMI) over the last four years. 

At a moment when California’s transportation system is at a critical turning point, the magazine underscores a central theme of RIMI’s work: the need to move from innovation to implementation. Long-standing assumptions—cheap driving, unlimited road capacity, predictable travel patterns, and inherently resilient infrastructure—no longer hold in the face of climate change, technological disruption, inequity, and shifting travel behavior. RIMI research shows that durable progress depends on coordinated policies that deliver affordability, safety, resilience, and emissions reductions at scale.

Across the magazine, readers will find research-grounded insights on:

  • Decarbonization, highlighting uneven progress across sectors and the importance of coordinated planning, smart charging, and energy-transportation integration to ensure cleaner air and equitable outcomes.
  • Public transit at a crossroads, examining fiscal pressures, ridership recovery, and the role of land use, pricing, and service quality in rebuilding strong, competitive transit systems.
  • Safety and road management, demonstrating why slower speeds, redesigned streets, and limits on road expansion are essential to reducing traffic deaths and improving public health.
  • Resilience in the face of disruption, showing how earthquakes, wildfires, and other shocks demand planning approaches that treat disruption as a normal condition rather than an exception.
  • Emerging mobility and workforce impacts, exploring how ridehailing, micromobility, automation, and evolving labor conditions can either strengthen or undermine transportation systems depending on policy choices.

Taken together, the Mobility 10x Magazine offers policymakers, planners, and agency leaders a roadmap—not a silver bullet—for navigating uncertainty and applying evidence-based research to real-world decisions. It reflects RIMI’s core premise: that California’s transportation challenges are deeply interconnected, and that progress requires coordinated action across technology, pricing, land use, labor, governance, and community partnership.📘 Download the Mobility 10x Magazine (PDF) to explore how UC ITS research is helping advance a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable transportation future for California.

You can also view the research magazine as a flipbook below:

March 25, 2024

By Susan Shaheen, Director, Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative, UC Institute of Transportation Studies (UC ITS); Mollie Cohen D’Agostino, Policy Lead, Public Transit and Shared Mobility, UC ITS; and Brian D. Taylor, Director, Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA

Over the past year researchers from across the UC Institute of Transportation Studies (UC ITS) produced a collection of research on public transit and other forms of shared mobility, examining many of the most pressing post-pandemic challenges facing these transportation systems. This article highlights noteworthy findings and recommendations from this body of work, including post-pandemic ridership trends, the fiscal health of public transit agencies, pros and cons of fare-free transit, transit operator shortages, best practices in zero-emission bus deployment, and more.

The pandemic caused reductions in public transit ridership, and revealed socioeconomic disparities in the ability to work from home. 

Researchers at UCLA and UC Berkeley explored pandemic-era trends in public transit usage, showing that California’s transit ridership largely followed national trends, with steep declines in 2020 followed by a halting and uneven recovery – with California’s transit ridership reaching only 56 percent of pre-pandemic levels by 2022. Researchers also found that transit agencies were initially shielded from near-term financial impacts of pandemic-caused ridership declines, thanks to federal stimulus measures. Researchers at UCLA and UC Davis also explored working from home trends, revealing that higher income earners saw the most substantial upticks in working from home during the pandemic, which led to falling ridership to and from downtowns.

Some public transit systems are doing relatively well financially, while others are struggling, which poses the question: Is public transit a service or a public utility?  

Many transit agencies are facing a fiscal crisis as federal stimulus funds are spent down, spurring policy debates over whether and how state public transit funds should be allocated or changed going forward. Researchers quantified the nature of the fiscal shortfalls and explained the varied experiences of transit agencies in the state, showing that ridership and finance problems vary by agency and region, with Bay Area agencies hit hardest, particularly those serving downtown San Francisco. Researchers also explored the future of state funding for transit operations in California, and recommended changes to the Transportation Development Act, including a de-emphasis on farebox recovery rates. Our leading public transit scholars suggest that public policy priorities must balance providing transit service where people need service most, not only where there are the most riders. This would constitute a policy shift away from viewing public transit as a “nice-to-have” amenity towards an essential utility, like energy and water, that provides a critical mobility safety net to ensure equitable mobility for all Californians.

Fare-free transit programs increase ridership, but may not be the most cost effective way to accomplish this goal; strategically targeted fare relief may be a better, and fairer, way to increase rider access.  

Since the pandemic, there is growing interest from state lawmakers to evaluate the potential of fare-free or reduced-fare transit programs. Fare-free programs can be effective for types of service – typically on systems and services where farebox recovery rates are already low and riders are disproportionately low income. Research shows that fare-free programs increase ridership by giving free rides to all riders regardless of ability to pay, but this may be a relatively expensive way to increase patronage on systems with higher farebox recovery rates and larger shares of higher-income riders. More targeted reduced- and fare-free programs, aimed at students, younger, older, and low-income riders, can direct benefits where they are most needed and have the biggest effect on patronage.

The transition to zero-emission buses requires careful advanced planning. 

Public transit agencies are preparing for the California Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) purchase requirement starting in 2029. To inform this effort, UC Berkeley researchers published a ZEB Implementation Guidebook for California Transit Fleets highlighting strategies for how agencies can implement battery charging protocols, build potential hydrogen fueling into their mix, and develop and administer training practices for ZEV maintenance. 

Poll shows best practices for public transit agencies to better connect passengers to shared scooters and bikesharing. UC Berkeley researchers explored the magnitude of interactions between shared micromobility and rail public transit systems and identified key strategies for leveraging micromobility to improve public transit access, including targeting bike infrastructure investments toward areas with public transit connections, converting vehicle travel lanes or streets to active transportation use; establishing or expanding parking places for active

Ridehailing is bouncing back post-pandemic, but connections to public transit buses and trains are relatively modest. 

Research published by UC Berkeley points to the nuances of understanding how ridehailing availability (on services like Lyft and Uber) affects public transit usage. The research identifies patterns across geographic regions and sociodemographic groups and finds that a relatively small percentage of ridehailing trips connect to public transit: 13% in San Francisco and 7% in Los Angeles, for example.  

The pandemic opened a lasting pathway for more creative uses of public curbs. 

Research from UC Berkeley points to thousands of examples of cities allocating parking spaces for outdoor dining, parklets, and retail activities in the early 2020s. While most of these use cases were initiated as short-term installations, many public agencies reported finding ways to preserve/expand them, and this has prompted new thinking on how we plan and prioritize curb space. 

Public transit operator shortages stem from many sources.

A UCLA study evaluating transit operator experiences finds that pandemic era operator shortages reflect numerous unresolved  issues for the public transit workforce. While some agencies have successfully coped with labor shortages, many agencies still face issues with finding, training, and retaining drivers and mechanics. Despite these labor shortages, wages have remained mostly flat over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. While wage increases are essential for transit operators, reforms elsewhere are also needed, including enhancing outreach and recruitment efforts, reforming scheduling protocols, updating disciplinary policies, and solidifying pathways for career advancement.

Publications Coming Soon in 2024:

  • Universal basic mobility programs and mobility wallets are a promising new tool for encouraging multi-modality and accessibility. 

Researchers at UCLA and UC Davis have collaborated over several years to study deployment of a large scale mobility wallet pilot in Los Angeles. This pilot allows users to pay for and receive subsidies for multiple transportation modes, including transit and shared vehicles/bikes/scooters. 

  • Microtransit can complement fixed route service, but scaling service is not without challenges and tradeoffs. 

Efforts to expand on-demand shuttles, referred to as microtransit, have been numerous, and researchers are tracking many of these deployments. Research points to the need to reform metrics of success for these types of offerings and align performance measurement to local and community priorities. Several collaborative research projects on microtransit are underway to understand how to design microtransit services to complement public transit and how to effectively scale microtransit services. 

  • Public transit agencies can build-in seismic resilience planning and anticipate rerouting strategies. Transit agencies need to consider broader resilience challenges and develop plans for restoring service after natural disasters. For example, researchers at UC Berkeley are studying the effects of earthquakes on trunk line transit service with results coming soon.   
  • More fare-free research is on the horizon. Also keep an eye out for upcoming research from UC Irvine that evaluates the empirical effects of fare-free service for K-14 students. This will add to the robust literature from UC ITS on evaluating the impacts of fare relief.  
  • Trends in travel behavior and public transit agency activity around the state.  UC Irvine researchers are actively working to assess travel trends and the prevalence of working from home with results expected soon. UC Berkeley researchers are looking to understand more about rail ridership by investigating rail stations characteristics and associated ridership. UC Davis researchers are investigating uptake of technical support provided by the California Integrated Travel Project.   

Looking for more? View completed and in-progress projects on the UC ITS website and browse UC ITS publications on eScholarship. Have questions or are interested in collaborating? Reach out to the Policy Lead for the Public Transit & Shared Mobility Portfolio, Mollie D’Agostino. 

The research presented in this article was made possible by the State of California’s support of both the UC ITS and its Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative, reflecting UC ITS’ mandate to serve as the transportation research arm for the people of California.

Sources 

Circella, G., Iogansen, X., Makino, K., Compostella, J., Young, M., & Malik, J. K. (2023). Investigating the Temporary and Longer-term Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mobility in California. UC Davis: National Center for Sustainable Transportation. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G23X84ZS Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0xm768km 

Gahbauer, J., Matute, J., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). Options for the Future of State Funding for  Transit Operations in California. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zb6z5rm 

Ju, Mengying, E. W. Martin, and S. A. Shaheen (2024). “What Is the Connection? Understanding Shared Micromobility Links to Rail Public Transit Systems in Major California Cities,” Sustainability, Vol. 16, 555, January, 18 pages. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/555 

King, H., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). Considering Fare-Free Transit in The Context of Research on Transit Service and Pricing: A Research Synthesis. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T6161T Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5mv677wf 

Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Wasserman, J. L, Ding, H., & Nelischer, C. (2023). Homelessness on the Road: Reviewing Challenges of and Responses to Homelessness in State Transportation Environments. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T6DC77 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/36f1x9v3 

Lipman, T., & Rogers, E. (2023). Zero-Emission Bus Implementation Guidebook for California Transit Fleets. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2TD9VPM Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8x88036r

Nations, J., Fu, Y., & Rabinowitz-Bussell, M. (2023). How Regional Transit Agencies Can Serve the Daily Mobility Needs of the Unhoused Population. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2G15Z65 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2h48g8sn 

Shaheen, S., Martin, E., & Stocker, A. (2023). Transportation Network Companies Might Be Pulling Riders from Public Transit, but This Could Change. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2RF5SBH Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6rb1j5wb 

Siddiq, F., Wasserman, J. L, Taylor, B. D, & Speroni, S. (2023). Transit’s Financial Prognosis: Findings from a Survey of U.S. Transit Systems during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Public Works Management & Policy, 28(4), 393-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087724X231160097 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qf4h886

Speroni, S., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). The Future of Working Away from Work and Daily Travel: A Research Synthesis. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T64W3D Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/23v094qk 

Wasserman, J. L, Gahbauer, J., Siddiq, F., King, H., Ding, H., & Taylor, B. D. (2023). Financing the Future: Examining the Fiscal Landscape of California Public Transit in the Wake of the Pandemic. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T6CC9P Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6r867462

Wasserman, J. L, Siddiq, F., & Taylor, B. D. (2022). How Are California’s Public Transit Operators Faring Fiscally Coming Out of the Pandemic? UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/02k9d06g 

Wasserman, J. L, Padgett, A., & Do, K. (2024). Transit, Belabored:Issues and Futures forCalifornia’s FrontlineTransit Workforce. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2S180TK Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2036z8c4

November 15, 2023

Last month the United States Department of Energy (DOE) announced that California will receive up to $1.2 billion to accelerate the build out of renewable hydrogen projects and infrastructure across the state. Implementation will be led by the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES)–an unprecedented partnership of over 400 public and private sector groups, including the University of California.

We caught up with Lew Fulton, Director of the Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways Program (STEPS+) at UC Davis, and Tim Lipman, Co-Director of the  Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC) at UC Berkeley to learn more about the significance of ARCHES for California and the nation, how they will be involved in this historic effort, and what they are currently working on.

Lew Fulton, PhD, UC Davis

Lew Fulton, PhD, UC Davis

Q:  What’s the significance of the ARCHES project and the DOE investment in hydrogen more broadly?

Fulton: The DOE selected seven hydrogen hubs located across the country, with California being one of the largest in terms of funding (over $1 billion). This clearly signifies the beginning of the “hydrogen era” in the U.S. and in California. For the ARCHES project in California, all hydrogen will be renewable, which makes this new era even more significant. Hydrogen will enable deep decarbonization of many sectors that would likely struggle otherwise, like trucking.

Lipman: In addition to being based on renewable sources, the hydrogen to be produced through the ARCHES project will be close to carbon neutral. The various projects under ARCHES are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as air pollutants, and help us move away from the use of fossil fuels. 

Q: From your standpoint, what are the critical questions, opportunities, and/or challenges for hydrogen in the transportation sector over the next 3 to 5 years?

Fulton: We have to align the planning and execution of four things: hydrogen supply, refueling station construction, production/sales of hydrogen vehicles, and purchases of those vehicles.  ARCHES is very focused on supporting that alignment. We must also work together to bring down costs, such as the cost of purchasing vehicles and the cost of hydrogen. We should be able to succeed in lowering costs if we scale up our system over the next five years or so. 

Lipman: Policy development will also be very important, especially for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Federal Production Tax Credit rules for hydrogen under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Q: How will you be participating in and/or contributing to the ARCHES effort? 

Fulton:  I’m the Chair of the transportation working group for ARCHES.

Lipman: And I’m serving as the Chair for the ports working group. 

Fulton: In these roles, we are leading developments of white papers that describe goals and challenges, and helping to coordinate efforts. In particular, we are at the interface between ARCHES management (led by the UC Office of the President and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, GO-Biz), industry, and other stakeholders. We are also involved in information gathering, dissemination, and coordination. And of course, we will be conducting research in support of planning what should and will happen over the next five years and beyond.

Lipman:  We are also both supporting the core systems analysis team within the ARCHES lead group. That group will play a key role in guiding project development to meet the emissions reduction and economic targets, as well as providing progress and evaluation assessments to DOE.

Q:  What are some of your recent and in-progress work related to hydrogen?

Lipman: I’ve been testing hydrogen vehicles for years in real-world settings and also operated Northern California’s first 700-bar hydrogen station at the Richmond Field Station for several years. My vehicle testing work is being replaced with mostly modeling work now that vehicles and stations have become commercial realities. Recent related work includes modeling networks of hydrogen fuel cell goods delivery fleets and drayage trucks for the DOE, and evaluating the life cycle greenhouse gas intensity of different hydrogen pathways. We are also the data analysis and community outreach partner for the NorCAL ZERO project, led by the Center for Transportation and the Environment, that is piloting the use of 30 Class-8 Hyundai Xcient fuel cell trucks at the Port of Oakland for drayage operation. Lew and I also recently collaborated with Jeff Reed at UC Irvine to produce a series of policy briefs that address priority questions facing the state legislature, including potential uses of hydrogen, likelihood of green hydrogen becoming cost competitive, and why it’s more important to focus on the carbon intensity of hydrogen rather than the color.

Fulton: Our hydrogen and fuel cell work at UC Davis primarily focuses on coordination between different components of a hydrogen system, with an emphasis on freight trucking. Recent and current projects include modeling system expansion; developing a spatial road map for near- and long-term hydrogen planning; and looking at aspects such as the optimal timing, location, and sizing of hydrogen stations oriented toward heavy duty trucks. Tim, myself, and others are also collaborating on a new project to map the potential of hydrogen and fuel cell electric vehicles across transportation sectors in California. 

Q:  How does your work on hydrogen fit into your broader research interests?

Fulton: The Energy Futures research group within ITS-Davis are modelers. We tend to take a systems approach and project system developments out as far as 2050. We primarily focus on how to decarbonize and transition to new technologies. ARCHES planning fits this type of work effort perfectly. 

Lipman:  At UC Berkeley, we focus on the lowest carbon fuel solutions and their real-world implementation and lessons learned, as well as local and regional systems modeling.  

Q:  Finally, what is a key message from your research that the general public and/or policymakers should know? 

Lipman: While hydrogen has the potential for large benefits across several different sectors, each use case has its own complexities and specific considerations. Realizing these benefits will require lots of careful study and planning, and involvement with a wide range of stakeholders. 

Fulton: I’ll add that hydrogen systems need to be built out to a fairly large system before most of the benefits will be realized, and before costs come down to their potential long term levels. We–public agencies, communities, industry partners, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and others–need to work together and be somewhat patient with this process. Hopefully by 2030, we will see important benefits such as the potential for zero-emission long-haul trucking with minimal refueling disruptions.

Advancing the state of the art in transportation engineering, planning, and policy for the people of California
Join Our Mailing List

About

News & Events

©2026 University of California Institute of Transportation Studies