San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) is facing a significant budget deficit, and it’s looking to cover some of the gap with increases to fare prices.
The agency’s board voted 7-4 in April to recommend fare increases of up to 40% to the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG. If approved by the transit planning agency, the change could be implemented by fall of this year, with one way rides increasing from $2.50 to $3.25.
San Diego City Council Member Sean Elo-Rivera was one of four votes opposing the plan. He argued it unfairly impacts riders who rely on the transit system the most.
“I … want to make sure that before we ask riders who are already oftentimes working two or three jobs, who are stretched thin, to pay a cent more, that we've absolutely done everything in our power to bring in revenue in other ways,” Elo-Rivera, who sits on the MTS board, told KPBS.
Installing automated barriers or fare gates that require riders to pay before letting them into the station is one way other transit systems have increased revenues without raising fare prices. Whether this is in store for MTS any time soon remains to be seen.
MTS said in a social media post earlier this year that it has a $500 million budget gap over the next four years. The plan is to cover most of that deficit with state funds from SB 125, as well as expanded advertising and land leases, and a transfer from the Capital Fund usually used for long term infrastructure.
But that still leaves a $90 million gap, according to the agency, a portion of which they intend to make up with increased fares.
MTS says the fare increase will bring in $9 million in additional revenue the first year and $14.2 million in the second year.
When KPBS asked transit riders about the possibility of increasing fares, some said they prefer to pay a little more over losing service.
“If it’s a small raise, then I think it’ll be OK for people," Laeshawna Moore said. "They’ll probably still be able to do it and a lot of people will be happy because they’ll still be able to get around as they usually do.”
Councilmember Elo-Rivera called this a false choice, saying there are other people who should be asked to pay more.
“I think that there is broad support for having the wealthy pay more of their fair share,” Elo-Rivera said. “There's broad support for having tourists pay more to pay for their impacts here. And that's a very different thing than asking everyday people.”
Elo-Rivera told KPBS that the agency should also look to maximize revenue from advertising, partnerships, naming rights, joint-development on agency-owned land, and state legislation to unlock more transit dollars before increasing prices for riders.
One MTS rider summed up the situation in an interview with KPBS.
“If they cut down service on the trolleys, then nobody would be able to get around at certain times and stuff,” said Aaryan Shah. “Honestly I say raise it cause I know half the people don’t pay anyway.”
Which raised a key question: why doesn’t San Diego have fare gates?
They’re ubiquitous in the New York City subway system and many other rail systems in America.
But San Diego’s trolley system has open platforms — enforcement is done by transit security officers checking tickets.
Service on the first trolley line in San Diego began in 1981, connecting downtown to the San Ysidro port of entry. The “South Line” was built alongside freight rail tracks that still operate today.
Along with costs, the proximity to the freight lines was part of why the system was built with open platforms, as the initial line was limited by surrounding infrastructure and speed and convenience at busy stations was a high priority.
“Our system runs on a barrier-free (i.e. no turnstiles) self-serve system where riders purchase their tickets and all doors open for easy on-and-off boarding,” MTS said in a look back at the trolley’s history.
But that easy way on the trolley is contributing to the agency’s financial struggles.
MTS said that in 2024, fare evasion was costing the agency $1 million every month.
“MTS increased its security budget by $4.2 million annually back in 2023 following a 2022 customer survey that showed riders wanted a stronger security presence on the train,” MTS spokesperson Hector Zermeno said in an email to KPBS.
The added funding allowed MTS to hire more Code Compliance Inspectors and increase fare compliance checks, from about 5% of the time to about 15%, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
But the agency’s policy previously allowed fare evaders to pay their $2.50 on board if caught by a security officer, meaning there was little incentive to tap on in the first place.
In February 2025, MTS changed that policy to immediately cite fare evaders while still allowing them to participate in a diversion program.
“Since the modifications took effect, MTS has seen a downward trend in fare evasion rates,” Zermeno said.
According to Zermeno, fare evasion rates dropped from 37.8% in January 2025 to 33.5% in March 2026, and revenues have increased by approximately $410,000 per month since the change in policy.
So after an additional security investment of $4.2 million annually and the change in policy, the agency is collecting a bit over $4.9 million in additional fare revenue annually — a net gain of about $720,000 in revenue per year.
“It is not apples to apples,” Zermeno said when asked about those numbers. “2024 security enhancements were invested for passenger safety purposes, not for fare enforcement. The fare citation diversion program modification in 2025 was a separate initiative/policy change.”
Zermeno also said the agency expects to see revenue continue to grow with additional efforts to improve compliance like rewards programs and promotional efforts.
Elo-Rivera said the problem of fare evasion and challenges to curtail it raises the question of making the trolley system free. And some cities have recently made transit free, with promising results.
Kansas City, Missouri made its bus service free in 2020, and a Kentucky University report found that the change attracted new riders and increased total ridership overall.
And Albuquerque, New Mexico made its bus system free as well in 2023 after finding that 88% of riders lived in households with annual incomes below $35,000.
But “free” public transit in these cases is subsidized by taxpayers, and losing that revenue would severely impact MTS’ operations without new funding sources.
“So long as we have fares, and people are paying those fares — and again, that mom who's working two jobs is paying her fare—people who are riding need to pay theirs,” Elo-Rivera said.
He said that’s why he’s advocated for closing the system and building fare gates to make compliance easier to enforce.
“I think that would do a couple other things as well,” Elo-Rivera told KPBS. “I think our transit stops would be nicer. I think they'd be cleaner. I think they'd be more welcoming. And I think that rather than having a perpetual and ongoing growing expense in terms of security for fare enforcement, we'd have a system in place that gives us a much greater sense of confidence that those who are riding have paid, and again, has those additional benefits in terms of cleanliness, safety, and overall aesthetics.”
Leif Gensert, a board member of the transit advocacy group Ride SD, said that while fare evasion is a problem, he’s not sure fare gates are the answer.
“I feel there's other things that you can do before you do fare gates,” Gensert said, suggesting things like having fare validators on the trolleys themselves.
He also said that placing fare validators in more prominent places would help encourage more people to tap to pay before riding.
“So make it easy for people to pay before you crack down with, like, making sure they can't even get on public transit,” Gensert said.
But Gensert acknowledged that fare gates would reduce the number of people who “accidentally” don’t pay their fare down to virtually zero.
Several other transit systems in America are installing or improving fare gates on their systems to address both fare evasion and safety and security on trains, with revenue-generating results.
Los Angeles Metro began installing fare gates at 28 high volume stations in March 2025 at a cost of about $15 million. The agency started with Firestone and Lake stations on its A Line and the initial report last April found that there was a 107% and 248% increase respectively in paid entries at those stations, and a 75% decrease in reported security incidents.
As of February this year, 22 Los Angeles stations have been fitted with improved fare gates and “incidents related to security concerns, vandalism/graffiti, and cleanliness declined by 69% at stations with new gates,” according to Los Angeles Metro.
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in D.C. finished installing improved fare gates at all 98 stations on the system in 2024 at a cost of about $40 million. DC Metro said that lost fares were costing the agency about $40 million annually, but the new fare gates reduced fare evasion on the system by 82%, while ridership increased as well.
Metro St. Louis began installing fare gates at all 38 stations in 2024, and last year reported a decline in safety incidents coupled with ridership growth at stations where these platform upgrades were completed.
And last year, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) finished installing fare gates at all 50 stations. The improved fare gates were a condition for receiving its portion of SB 125 funds and are increasing revenue by $10 million annually, according to a BART social media post.
In the six months after installation, the improved fare gates also contributed to a 41% decrease in crime on the system; a 59% decrease in the number of riders who say they’ve witnessed somebody not paying the fare; and over six months, a reduction of 961 hours that staff spent performing “corrective maintenance” for vandalism, graffiti, and severe damage at BART stations, according to the agency.
Overall, agencies that have installed or significantly improved their fare gates have seen similar results: increased fare collection, higher ridership, improved safety on the system, and a reduction in time and money spent handling security issues and doing maintenance at stations.
“MTS is currently studying the feasibility of installing fare gates on the Trolley system,” Zermeno said. “There are some foreseeable challenges with fare gates at stations that are adjacent to city-owned sidewalks in the downtown San Diego area due to the location and the small footprints of the stations.”
At the Fifth Avenue station, Gensert explained some of the challenges.
“You would have to raise these walls, you would have to put the fare gates here and people could still walk in there,” Gensert said, pointing at C Street, which has an open trolley platform on either side.
“So you would have to have some doors too that are closed when the trolley is not coming,” Gensert continued. “So there's all of these … challenges that fare gates present.”
But Elo-Rivera believes that those obstacles are surmountable.
“I think MTS has some very smart people who can problem solve,” Elo-Rivera said. “I think that if folks are operating underground transportation systems, we can figure out how to create a closed system above ground.”
“Another challenge is the significant cost to install the infrastructure,” Zermeno said, pointing to the $15 million cost in Los Angeles.
Gensert also said the cost of implementing fare gates would give advocates pause once it was made clear how expensive an undertaking it would be.
But Elo-Rivera suggested the agency explore additional state funding avenues, and added that the cost recovery on the back end from increased fare revenue could help pay for installing things like fare gates.
“Will it eventually pay out?” Gensert said. “Again, that's something to be seen. But if we don't have the money to pay for it up front, it's a moot point.”
According to MTS’ projections, the fare increase will lead to ridership losses of 1.8 million passenger trips in the first year, and 2.8 million in the second year. Despite this, Zermeno said MTS still projects fare revenues to increase.
“The models used in the Fare Change Study with SANDAG accounted for ridership loss when projecting fare revenue increases,” Zermeno said in an email.
Elo-Rivera said that additional revenue would come largely from riders who depend on the transit system to get around the city, and are the most impacted by price increases.
“All of that comes back to fairness for the working families in San Diego who depend on transit, are paying what they're supposed to be paying, and are now being asked to pay more,” Elo-Rivera said.
