{"id":792236,"date":"2026-05-13T00:35:32","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T00:35:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/792236\/"},"modified":"2026-05-13T00:35:32","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T00:35:32","slug":"why-doesnt-the-san-diego-trolley-system-have-fare-gates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/792236\/","title":{"rendered":"Why doesn\u2019t the San Diego trolley system have fare gates?"},"content":{"rendered":"

San Diego\u2019s Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) is facing a significant budget deficit<\/a>, and it\u2019s looking to cover some of the gap with increases to fare prices.<\/p>\n

The agency\u2019s board voted 7-4 in April to recommend fare increases of up to 40%<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cI \u2026 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,\u201d Elo-Rivera, who sits on the MTS board, told KPBS.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

MTS said in a social media post<\/a> 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<\/a>, as well as expanded advertising and land leases, and a transfer from the Capital Fund usually used for long term infrastructure.<\/p>\n

But that still leaves a $90 million gap, according to the agency, a portion of which they intend to make up with increased fares.<\/p>\n

MTS says the fare increase will bring in $9 million in additional revenue the first year and $14.2 million in the second year.<\/p>\n

When KPBS asked transit riders about the possibility of increasing fares, some said they prefer to pay a little more over losing service.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf it\u2019s a small raise, then I think it\u2019ll be OK for people,” Laeshawna Moore said. “They\u2019ll probably still be able to do it and a lot of people will be happy because they\u2019ll still be able to get around as they usually do.\u201d<\/p>\n

Councilmember Elo-Rivera called this a false choice, saying there are other people who should be asked to pay more.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think that there is broad support for having the wealthy pay more of their fair share,\u201d Elo-Rivera said. \u201cThere’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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

One MTS rider summed up the situation in an interview with KPBS.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf they cut down service on the trolleys, then nobody would be able to get around at certain times and stuff,\u201d said Aaryan Shah. \u201cHonestly I say raise it cause I know half the people don\u2019t pay anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n

Which raised a key question: why doesn\u2019t San Diego have fare gates?<\/p>\n

They\u2019re ubiquitous in the New York City subway system and many other rail systems in America.<\/p>\n

But San Diego\u2019s trolley system has open platforms \u2014 enforcement is done by transit security officers checking tickets.<\/p>\n

Service on the first trolley line in San Diego began in 1981, connecting downtown to the San Ysidro port of entry. The \u201cSouth Line\u201d was built alongside freight rail tracks that still operate today.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur 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,\u201d MTS said in a look back at the trolley\u2019s history<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But that easy way on the trolley is contributing to the agency\u2019s financial struggles.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

A rider taps to pay at the Fifth Avenue trolley station in downtown San Diego on Wednesday, May 6, 2026<\/p>\n

MTS said that in 2024, fare evasion was costing the agency $1 million every month<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cMTS 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,\u201d MTS spokesperson Hector Zermeno said in an email to KPBS.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But the agency\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

In February 2025, MTS changed that policy<\/a> to immediately cite fare evaders while still allowing them to participate in a diversion program.<\/p>\n

\u201cSince the modifications took effect, MTS has seen a downward trend in fare evasion rates,\u201d Zermeno said.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 a net gain of about $720,000 in revenue per year.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not apples to apples,\u201d Zermeno said when asked about those numbers. \u201c2024 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Zermeno also said the agency expects to see revenue continue to grow with additional efforts to improve compliance like rewards programs and promotional efforts.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Kansas City, Missouri made its bus service free in 2020, and a Kentucky University report<\/a> found that the change attracted new riders and increased total ridership overall.<\/p>\n

And Albuquerque, New Mexico made its bus system free<\/a> as well in 2023 after finding that 88% of riders lived in households with annual incomes below $35,000.<\/p>\n

But \u201cfree\u201d public transit in these cases is subsidized by taxpayers, and losing that revenue would severely impact MTS\u2019 operations without new funding sources.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo long as we have fares, and people are paying those fares \u2014 and again, that mom who’s working two jobs is paying her fare\u2014people who are riding need to pay theirs,\u201d Elo-Rivera said.<\/p>\n

He said that\u2019s why he\u2019s advocated for closing the system and building fare gates to make compliance easier to enforce.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think that would do a couple other things as well,\u201d Elo-Rivera told KPBS. \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Leif Gensert, a board member of the transit advocacy group Ride SD, said that while fare evasion is a problem, he\u2019s not sure fare gates are the answer.<\/p>\n

\u201cI feel there’s other things that you can do before you do fare gates,\u201d Gensert said, suggesting things like having fare validators on the trolleys themselves.<\/p>\n

He also said that placing fare validators in more prominent places would help encourage more people to tap to pay before riding.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo make it easy for people to pay before you crack down with, like, making sure they can’t even get on public transit,\u201d Gensert said.<\/p>\n

But Gensert acknowledged that fare gates would reduce the number of people who \u201caccidentally\u201d don\u2019t pay their fare down to virtually zero.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Los Angeles Metro began installing fare gates at 28 high volume stations in March 2025 at a cost of about $15 million<\/a>. The agency started with Firestone and Lake stations on its A Line and the initial report last April<\/a> found that there was a 107% and 248% increase respectively in paid entries at those stations, and a 75% decrease in reported security incidents.<\/p>\n

As of February this year, 22 Los Angeles stations have been fitted with improved fare gates and \u201cincidents related to security concerns, vandalism\/graffiti, and cleanliness declined by 69% at stations with new gates,\u201d according to Los Angeles Metro<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in D.C. finished installing improved fare gates<\/a> at all 98 stations on the system in 2024 at a cost of about $40 million<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

Metro St. Louis began installing fare gates<\/a> at all 38 stations in 2024, and last year reported<\/a> a decline in safety incidents coupled with ridership growth at stations where these platform upgrades were completed.<\/p>\n

And last year, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) finished installing fare gates at all 50 stations<\/a>. 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"New<\/p>\n

New fare gates at a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station are shown in this undated image. <\/p>\n

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\u2019ve witnessed somebody not paying the fare; and over six months, a reduction of 961 hours that staff spent performing \u201ccorrective maintenance\u201d for vandalism, graffiti, and severe damage at BART stations, according to the agency.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cMTS is currently studying the feasibility of installing fare gates on the Trolley system,\u201d Zermeno said. \u201cThere 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the Fifth Avenue station, Gensert explained some of the challenges.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou would have to raise these walls, you would have to put the fare gates here and people could still walk in there,\u201d Gensert said, pointing at C Street, which has an open trolley platform on either side.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo you would have to have some doors too that are closed when the trolley is not coming,\u201d Gensert continued. \u201cSo there’s all of these \u2026 challenges that fare gates present.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Elo-Rivera believes that those obstacles are surmountable.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think MTS has some very smart people who can problem solve,\u201d Elo-Rivera said. \u201cI think that if folks are operating underground transportation systems, we can figure out how to create a closed system above ground.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAnother challenge is the significant cost to install the infrastructure,\u201d Zermeno said, pointing to the $15 million cost in Los Angeles.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cWill it eventually pay out?\u201d Gensert said. \u201cAgain, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to MTS\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe models used in the Fare Change Study with SANDAG accounted for ridership loss when projecting fare revenue increases,\u201d Zermeno said in an email.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll 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,\u201d Elo-Rivera said.<\/p>\n