By Kate Callen
Why do San Diego’s political leaders keep pushing transit-oriented development in a city with a hopelessly inadequate transit system?
That question was at the heart of my August 29 post about commuting by bus and trolley around San Diego. Our YIMBY government claims that more people will use transit if they live closer to it. Judging by the responses to my post, proximity won’t make a bit of difference.
Simply put, the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) does not get people where they need to go when they need to be there. The Blue, Orange and Green trolley lines are efficient, but they are linear routes with narrow reach. Most of the city must depend on a sprawl of 97 bus lines that are neither timely nor user-friendly.
For a full picture of the hardships of transit commuting, and using the excellent online MTS Trip Planner, let’s map out how the residents of two “Complete Communities” housing projects would take buses and trolleys to regional employment centers for jobs that start at 8:30 a.m.
In Point Loma, a four-story, 56-unit apartment building is planned at the busy intersection of Rosecrans and Talbot Streets. In Lomita, 37 ADU units are slated for construction at 819 Jacumba Street. Neither project will have on-site parking for residents. Both are in congested neighborhoods where street parking is already scarce.
We’ll start by commuting from Rosecrans and Talbot to Qualcomm in Sorrento Valley. You would leave at 7:00, walk to Rosecrans and Canon to catch the #28 bus to the Old Town Transit Center, take the Coaster to the Sorrento Valley station, then take the 472 Coaster connection bus to Qualcomm Building Q.
Your total transit time is 1 hour and 25 minutes, including 14 minutes of walking. If you drove, even in rush hour, the estimated time would be 35 minutes.
Now let’s commute from Lomita to the UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center. To arrive by 8:30, you’d have to leave home at 6:40 and walk over to St. Vicente Street to catch the #4 bus. You get off at Paradise Valley and Meadowbrook to catch the #12 bus to Logan Avenue and Jarrett Court. Then you catch your third bus of the morning, the #3, which takes you to the Medical Center.
Your total transit time is 1 hour and 39 minutes, with 5 minutes of walking. If you drove, even in rush hour, the estimated time would be at most 40 minutes.
How many people will choose to commute to work by transit when they can drive there in half the time? How many people have the patience and the energy to trudge from home to transit stop to transit stop to workplace?
Political leaders don’t consider such logistics because they have a “let them take buses” mindset. As then-Councilmember Monica Montgomery Steppe coolly remarked during a 2023 discussion of Transit Priority Areas, “You will walk a mile to transit if you have to. For those of us who maybe have never had to, it’s easy to say folks won’t do that.”
Indeed. The little people learn to suck it up at an early age. Let’s face it, we can’t all be important and privileged.
Which brings me back to my invitation to Nicole Capretz of the Climate Action Campaign to ride the #2 bus with me.
My Rag post responded to Capretz’s August 28 Union-Tribune op-ed pushing for passage of pro-density Senate Bill 79. I wanted to know if Capretz, a champion of transit-oriented development, uses transit herself.
I haven’t heard from her yet, but I’m holding out hope. In fact, I want to expand the scope of my outreach to include Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and city planners.
The next time any deliberative body at City Hall discusses transit-related housing, the public should ask each member on the record how they commuted to the meeting and how they regularly get to work.
A final “thank you” to Paul Webb and Carolyn Chase for comments on my post that taught me a lot. Like most of San Diego’s problems, we have lousy transit because short-sighted civic leaders through the years were too lethargic to engineer a system that gives people the services they actually need.
Rag story about Steppe from February 2023
Despite her comments as quoted in the article, the Rag is a long-time admirer of Steppe’s record of progressive leadership. Even progressives say stupid stuff.
Thanks Kate!
MTS recently came out saying they need more funding and are contemplating placing a sales tax increase on the ballot, and in the meantime will likely have to raise fares. While I’m all for better public transportation, MTS does a miserable job of advocating on its own behalf.
SDSU controls but has yet to develop acres of land designated for high density housing around two of MTS’ largest trolley stops. The Qualcomm site has sat vacant for close to five years with no housing or university buildings. SDSU is pushing forward with its 4,500 bed Evolve student housing project located 3/4 miles from SDSU’s on campus trolley stop, when it should be placed a couple hundred yards away on asphalt parking lots along College Ave.
For years MTS and the City have said nothing about SDSU’s lack of collaboration to help increase housing on land around the trolley stops it controls and help increase ridership.
MTS should be leading the charge calling out SDSU and its development partners to get their act together and stop undermining MTS’ goal of developing a working public transportation system. Expecting taxpayers to underwrite government dysfunction is not the answer.
Here is the problem, we have political leadership from the blue and red who are committed to their careers not the public. Keep electing career politicians you will get decisions not on what is best for San Diego, but what makes their next move up the political chain easier. You want better government don’t vote for incumbents.
Excellent article, once again Kate. A few years ago, I was at a City Council meeting, and clearly remember Marni vonWilpert saying she didn’t have to worry about trolly issues, in her area, because there were no trolly’s in her Council Dist. 5. There is a City bus route, but I’ve not read where there are multi story ADU’s, or apts. going up in RB, PQ, or most of the North County communities. I would imagine the neighbors in those areas, would be up in arms if an 8 story building went up next door to their single family homes. And as packed as I-5 & I-15, and 163 are at prime commuter times, seems like people would love to live in those neighborhoods if there was “affordable” housing near the bus stops. So City Council, I question why is there no multi family housing units going up in communities that have a bus route north of Mira Mesa???
MTS Buses get 124.7 Thousand riders a day. You could have spent the time of your day advocating for MTS buses to get more funding through a sales tax increase, instead you are out here advocating for increasing the cost of living of the average San Diegan by furthering the housing crisis.
One of the ultimate solutions to housing and density is building high rise apartments along the trolley line, but because of NIMBY folks, that sort of stuff doesn’t gain traction. Just think of all the people who work at UCSD and Scripps La Jolla, the USCD campus, the VA, and La Jolla Village and UTC who would love to live in high density apartments or condos built at the Morena and Claremont trolly stop?
This is not how people who rely on public transport pick a rental. They will chose a rental that works for them. Just like I said no to a job in Oceanside because I didn’t want to move and wasn’t prepared for a commute like that.
These rentals would be perfect for people who work on base and could bike to work. That could mean fewer cars exiting PL every afternoon. It would be great for people who work downtown. They could easily take the bus or ride an e-bike. Many lawyers use the bus already to get to the courthouse.
The rentals would be perfect for seniors who want to downsize and give up on driving, but want to stay in the community. This could also open a single family home for a family with young children whose kids go to our local schools.
Here is one possible way to allow potential increased density near the Clairemont and Balboa trolley stops. A custom impact fee for blocking views. Each new development that is higher than the old zoning shall pay 100% of the market value decrease of any property whose view is significantly blocked due to any additional new high limit.
The simple principal involved in view blocking is called a “taking.”
And increased height limits + density are a “giving.”
Those developers who receive the “giving” should be the ones to pay for the “taking.”
You don’t own the air in-front of your home. If you want to protect your view, negotiate a deed restriction with any property owner who can block your view.
BY common law, a long established height limit LAW provides a view easement above that height. When the city arbitrarily revokes the law, that is a “taking.” Not only do they block views, they block solar panels that generate income. No different than building a sewage plant or a metal stamping factory next door and claiming that this makes no difference to odors or noise.
spelling: principle
The proposal at Rosecrans and Talbot is NOT feasible. That intersection can not handle any additional traffic. It is already severely overloaded and an elementary school is 50 feet away.
However the rush hour drive between there and Sorrento Valley or Sorrento Mesa is FAR MORE than 35 min.
Counter argument- chance of that school not closing in the coming 5 years will be zero if we don’t build more housing. Enrollment at the elementary level has decreased by 20% in Point Loma over the past 10 years and this is the least popular and smallest school.
Then SDUSD will sell off the entire property and someone will build 100s of units….. see Dylan homes where Barnard used to be.
There is zero chance that this development is the key to housing young families. It will NOT be affordable. It does NOT fit on this very limited capacity intersection. It is a good example of a “giving”: whereby the city grants a property owner millions of dollars in value by upzoning a parcel, and the citizens get Nothing out of the deal.
The schools have now found a new pay system for teachers – the district will build units on land for $1.5 million per unit and then rent the units to teachers for $1000 per month.
Every new unit ultimately helps families.
We are becoming the peninsula of single family homes occupied by empty nesters. From where I am sitting now I see 3 homes >2000 sqft with a total of 4 seniors in them. If just one of them downsized to an more suitable unit, it would free up space for a family.
And as long as we have so many empty guestrooms waiting for an occasional visit, families may have to make do with small apartments.
Thank you for your thoughtful, and insightful initiative. Another important and key point, to the issues with commuting, are the non-sensical forced pedestrian routes, in several areas in San Diego. Which make taking public transportation even more difficult.
Notably, in the UTC area, where many use the MTS transits daily, there are multiple streets where a crosswalk does not exists and pedestrians are forced to cross two to three streets (meaning a forced re-route) in order to get to the other side of the street they were attempting to cross in the first place or to a pedestrian bridge.
Key intersections with heavy pedestrian traffic such as La Jolla Village Blvd which separates two main shopping areas, and also houses the Nobel Station transit station has a terrible design, that not only creates a great deal of extra walking for pedestrians, it’s incredibly confusing for those who are unfamiliar with it to navigate. Which creates a strange predicament. As crossing the street, should be incredibly straightforward. Yet, in this area, if pedestrians follow the sidewalk from the Nobel transit station sidewalk, they are brought to an intersection, next the SleepNumber building that does not have a crosswalk. Which forces them to then cross three streets, to get to the other side of that street (meaning the side of the road that houses Whole Foods and that has a pedestrian ramp). Instead of being able to cross directly from one side of the road to another.
There are areas around the UTC mall on La Jolla Village Drive, which houses a transit hub, that puts pedestrians in a similar or worse predicament. Where there are literally chained off sidewalks that are near intersections, instead of crosswalks in some areas. Forcing pedestrians to take quite a long walk to reach pedestrian bridges or to find a crosswalk, from which they can cross to the other side of La Jolla Village Drive.
Not only does this make it harder for those who are already walking a great deal to reach public transport, it really perplexes me, as someone who relies on public transportation to commute and to get my groceries, as many in this area do. Why was it designed this way, and why force people who are carrying groceries to cross multiple extra streets?
It’s a bizarre and poorly designed plan, which appears forced by people who never intended to have to personally walk those poorly planned pedestrian routes on foot themselves. I’ve lived all over the world, and I have never seen anything as poorly designed in areas, that are designed for heavy pedestrian traffic as what I have seen in our beautiful city.
This further frustrates me, when seeing our Mayor being driven around in a black SUV, in downtown. When famously former mayor of NYC and billionaire, Michael Bloomberg (a much more high profile person) would take the subway to work.
I moved to San Diego as a kid, and I have taken public transit all during my youth and as often as possible in my adulthood. But the idiocy of planners who think it is efficient or easy to use San Diego area public transit simply have not tried to live with it. It is exhausting, often user-unfriendly, and even in the rare instance when it doesn’t take longer than driving, you end up walking up hills or long distances with packages, groceries, or other items. If you’re in any way impaired in mobility, it’s impossible. For years, I gave hoped SDMTS would build trial runs with trolley, bus, and shuttle-type vehicles to get us closer to our homes in efficient time periods. Just show it can work, and take on increased ridership as the system proves itself. But no. It’s still the same old system that takes me 1.5 hours to walk, catch a bus, take a trolley, and transfer to a bus, then walk some more, adding 3 hours to an already long workday.
If you know how to use the public transportation system it’s good. Too many people complain about it all the time. But I really like it I see how long it takes me to get somewhere and plan it. I like it because too many car drivers are on their phone instead of the toad
Even if one knows how to use it, MTS still leaves a lot to be desired but it’s not nearly as horrible as so many make it out to be.
I take transit almost everywhere since I prefer it to the stress of driving and storing a vehicle in a crowded complex (and my commute happens to be really easy on one bus and, critically, I have no dependents or caregiving responsibilities). I also had a car the first ~3 years I lived here (10 total now), so I’ve seen the transportation system from both sides.
The bottom line is that there is limited physical space and transportation modes are zero-sum. Buses are slow because they are stuck in traffic with cars. The Blue Line takes 15 minutes to get through downtown because it waits at stoplights all along Park Blvd and C St. Many of the region’s attempts at faster transit have been half measures stalled by opposition to deprioritizing cars. Bus lanes were added for route 7 and 215 in Balboa Park (those two routes combine for a bus every 3-4 minutes), but the lanes were made discontinuous to save a few parking spaces, so buses get stuck merging into traffic anyway. Route 235 has the centerline stops on I-15, which is a great way to repurpose our dense highway network to facilitate rapid point-to-point transit…but then it sits in traffic with every other car on SR-94 and I-15 north of Adams.
It’s not possible to have fast and efficient transit while at the same time having universal/ubiquitous street parking and allowing cars to use every traffic lane on every road. It’s not entirely clear in this article what the writer would have the SANDAG and the various cities involved do going forward. If the demand is for local and statewide elected officials to prioritize transit just as much as they do housing and stop letting transit agencies barely survive year to year and desperately beg for support (as is currently happening with Newsom reverting his prior promises to Bay Area agencies), then I’m onboard. If the argument is that any encouragement to use transit is inherently an out-of-touch, elitist pipe dream and that we should continue to make cars the primary mode of transportation, then I’d argue that the status quo will continue to get worse: More sprawl into fire-prone areas, more homelessness as people are continually priced out of neighborhoods that are at maximum capacity for storing cars (not maximum capacity for housing humans) and more inequality due to the barriers formed by the de facto requirement of having a car in order to participate in most of the economy.
I use the bus for leisure somewhat regularly with our family of 4. My 30 minute walk to Newport and Cable can be a 6 minute bus ride. I can get to Gaslamp in 40 minutes and have zero worry about parking a car while I can drink pedestrian levels of alcohol. Monday Through Friday there is a bus that goes by, yet not to, the airport. This bus cuts through the peninsula all the way to Sunset Cliffs the cliffs and suffers from poor ridership.
People are missing out on a wonderful resource by avoiding or even demonizing the bus even though traffic here sucks. I loathe waiting in a 20 minute cattle que for a $40 Uber to drive me 2.5 miles away.
“Transit” in San Diego encompasses two vastly different modes: trolleys and buses. Density near trolley stops makes sense. Density near bus stops doesn’t. Most residential neighborhoods in San Diego are served by buses, and that’s where developers, incentivized by “Complete Communities,” are choosing to build huge apartment complexes.
My job as a reporter is to demonstrate how policymakers are failing the public. (Sadly, this has become all too easy in San Diego.) I point out what doesn’t work. It’s the job of elected officials and highly-paid city managers to figure out what will work.
Finally, has anyone else noticed that bicycle commuting hasn’t been a factor in these discussions? San Diego invested a fortune in bike lanes on the premise that people would leave their cars and bike to work. Have we seen a return on that investment? Do we have any verifiable data on bicycle commuting?
Public transit, micro mobility, multi modal, climate action, vision zero…all these terms are catch phrases that City planners string together and make themselves sound important, up to date and in step with the political agenda.
Kate, thank you for saying the quiet parts out loud. We’re living the same movie in Santa Cruz: trendy “transit-oriented development” layered onto a transit network that simply doesn’t get most people where they need to go, when they need to get there.
Here, the political pitch is identical: build dense housing near a corridor and people will magically choose transit. But our first/last-mile reality is hills, gaps in east–west service, limited frequency outside peak hours, and stops that don’t feel safe at night. Most residents won’t (and often can’t) add a ½–1 mile walk on each end of a trip, that’s 10–25 extra minutes each way before you even board. Multiply that across a bus + transfer + wait, and you’ve turned a 35–40 minute drive into a 90-minute odyssey. Proximity on a map ? usefulness in real life.
What grates is the hypocrisy. The loudest boosters of TOD and the (still unfunded) passenger rail concept rarely arrive at meetings by bus themselves. If walking “a mile to transit” is so easy, let’s put it on the record: how did each official get to today’s hearing, and how do they commute most days? If decision-makers had to live with the same headways, missed connections, dark walks, and stroller-unfriendly gaps they prescribe for everyone else, the policies would look very different.
Santa Cruz should fix transit first: reliable 10–15 minute headways on spine routes, safe/continuous sidewalks, protected bike access, real shuttles for the last mile, and demand-responsive connectors for hills and seniors. Until then, slapping “transit-oriented” on projects without parking just shifts costs and time onto working families, caregivers, and the elderly, while the champions of these policies keep driving. Your piece captures that disconnect perfectly.
Latest Forbes report is almost 92% of US families own at least one vehicle. Like it or not, that is how we move around, that puts us in control, saves time, safer, flexibility, able to blast your music, personal space, carry tools and equipment. That is reality. EVs and Hybrids can help reduce GHG, Hydrogen we are still not sure of the costs and impacts.
EVs themselves can reduce GHG, but will not solve the traffic crises that are known abroad. And hydrogen cars? Get real. Hydrogen cars and fuelling stations are extremely cost-prohibitive, far more than electric vehicles, and at that point you’re just going to force everyone out of the state, not just the city or county. Where are you getting this idea that more cars are going to fix our car-ridden problem???
A whole segment of the population, and the above excellent comments, is the fact some people have kids to get to school before getting to their job by 8:30, and if you have one in pre-school, 1 in grade school and 1 in Jr. High, to get them to their destination at three different schools, and the parent getting to work by 8:30 is simply not going to happen by bike, bus or trolly. A parent can not dump kids off at their schools before specific times, and who would WANT to leave them standing alone a perfect target for a predator? Another factor is parents who spend time with their kids on the weekends. I was one of those single parents. Every Sunday was kids day, in SD we’d go to Sea World, and be first in line when they open, the Zoo or Wild Animal Park, LA amusement parks, Pt. Loma lighthouse to see what had washed up onto the rocks, fishing off the pier, or the beach. When I lived in LV we’d go to kid friendly things there. When I lived Central Valley, we’d go to Santa Cruz, San Francisco they learned how to get off and on the trolleys without falling in the street, Sierra Mountains camping for the weekend, grape stomping at a friends huge vineyard, or playing hide and seek on quads in the grape vineyard. It was kid day, and my kids enjoyed doing things, just as I did. I didn’t want them sitting and watching TV. Those with kids that like to do family things, will not be spending hours on public transit of any kind and it doesn’t always take them where they want to go, even in SD.
What if…? Have you ever used Google Maps for directions, and then switched from ‘drive’ to ‘transit’? What if living here in OB, I had to get to where I used to work. It was on Arjons Drive just off Miramar Road, start time 7:00am. Well, on public transit, I would need to leave at 11:11pm to arrive at 6:24am, traveling 7 hours 13 minutes one way, and wait 36 minutes to start work. Or I could drive there in 22 minutes.
Virginia: Very good common sense point, and your, plus others, reality!!
They might try to improve public transit first. When I was growing up, it worked for me. When I was in high school, there were school buses, but I had a job. I left school, got on the city bus, and was at work by 4:00 pm. Buses do not service school hours deliberately. How many city buses do you EVER see full? With so many resources in government today going to”Planning,” they could start with public transit that got at least some people where they wanted to go when they needed to be there.