CA: Is SANDAG on the right track with its new $125 billion blueprint?

San Diego County transit planners said in early December that it “left the era behind of big ideas” for high-speed rail in favor of dedicated bus lanes, express lanes and micro-transit shuttles.

The San Diego Association of Governments’ new $125 billion blueprint for the years leading up to 2050 is a reaction to funding shortfalls. It scraps plans for a heavy rail trolley extension, called the Purple Line, that would go from the border to Sorrento Valley, with stops in City Heights and San Diego State University.

Proponents of public transportation have argued it is a benefit to economies because it could eliminate the need to own a car, and connect workers to jobs farther from home in less-expensive areas. Heavy rail, with separate tracks that don’t mix with car traffic, are often seen as the preferred method.

SANDAG CEO Mario Orso said the agency must use a “reality-based approach” based on budget constraints. It said it will still study Purple Line alternatives, such as light rail and bus service.

Question: Is SANDAG on the right track with its new $125 billion blueprint?

Economists

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

YES: Fixed rail systems work great in cities that integrate them into early city planning, such that land acquisition is not so expensive and densely developed nodes can be planned near most stops. But they are hard to pull off as an afterthought and CEQA and NIMBY opposition delays will be too costly. Autonomous vehicles and buses of various sizes with flexible routes will have a more immediate impact and much more potential ridership.

David Ely, San Diego State University

YES: With regard to the decision to omit heavy rail for the Purple Line in the plan. While a modern heavy rail system would be wonderful to have, it would require significant resources to construct. And there is the risk that actual costs of heavy rail will escalate during construction. There is no shortage of transportation projects to fund. Directing resources toward less expensive transportation infrastructure projects is likely to yield greater benefits to residents.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

YES: Doubtful another 0.5% to 0.75% sales tax will pass, requiring two-thirds of voters to approve on top of the existing 0.5% sales tax enacted since 1987. Skipping less popular stops for riders to get slightly faster to destinations would result in minimal commute time savings and counterproductively decrease usage because of less accessibility for riders with fewer stops. Utilizing express buses increases traffic congestion. Simply increasing the frequency of trolleys would boost both usage and travel times.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: Improving mass transit is important in San Diego. Heavy rail can be useful, but it is very expensive and lacks flexibility. The use of rapid buses and microshuttles to supplement the current light rail system and its proposed extension would be cheaper and allow more options. Cost is a significant consideration as it may be difficult to get voters to approve future tax hikes. There is also the question of whether San Diego has the density to support a heavy rail system.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

YES: I applaud SANDAG’s turn to a “reality-based approach” but would urge them to carry this idea further. The key to getting more riders is to make public transit cheaper, faster and more convenient than being stuck on a freeway. The focus should be on reducing total travel time for alternatives to the most congested freeway routes and times. SANDAG should view themselves not as grand planners, but instead as a competitive business trying to get more customers by offering a better product.

Ray Major, economist

YES: Scaling back the previous ambitious plan was the right and honest move, especially with a population forecast expected to decrease over the life of it. Importantly, residents clearly voted down Measure A and G, choosing not to fund these types of infrastructure improvement for the region. Without funding, the plan needed to be scaled back. Projects that were never financially or physically possible were finally dropped, resulting in a plan that works for the region within realistic constraints.

Executives

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: The new plan is modest compared to previous SANDAG plans, which is why it received a nearly unanimous vote of the board. However, even this plan will require voters to approve sales tax increases, which will be difficult. Many tax-paying Californians are starting to vote with their feet by leaving the state to go to lower tax states like Texas, Nevada and Arizona. Legislators and regulators need to take note of that fact.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO:  While this blueprint may be “getting back to reality,” it still lacks clarity on how it will be funded. SANDAG’s history of mismanagement and lack of public trust make it hard to see the way forward. The agency shouldn’t rely on assumptions or expect voters to approve new sales tax measures. Reality means staying within budget. SANDAG shouldn’t abandon big ideas — but first, it needs to rebuild trust and base its plans on achievable, well-funded goals.

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: SANDAG needs to do the best job it can to predict the future, not knowing all the variables that will affect its planning. No one has a crystal ball, but they need to at least make educated guesses about what the San Diego County community’s needs will be many years out. The key is flexibility to consistently massage the plan as issues such as innovation, climate change and financing change on a regular basis.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

YES: I hope their plan includes servicing more riders at lower costs, including less expenditure on traditional bus services and rail-based systems (including the trolley line), which serve few riders at tremendous cost. Planning the future must involve adaptation to electric, autonomous vehicles that could supply our region with flexible public transportation options, including minibuses, constantly adaptable routes, dedicated lanes, recharging stations, drop-off zones and designated parking facilities for waiting autonomous vehicles.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: SANDAG’s $125 billion regional plan is ambitious but depends on funding, consensus and execution. Conceptually, it’s on the right track, yet requires sales tax hikes — the last failed. Sustainability and multimodal transit could gain support if trust in SANDAG and political leadership were established. Instead, dysfunction defines us. Until we decide who we are as a city, even the best blueprint risks collapse.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: The city must grapple with its fiscal constraints and prioritize dedicated bus lanes and express lanes for wider coverage per dollar. With the money saved, make the system affordable for all while preserving flexibility to adjust routes to maximize ridership. Then, continually measure usage and reliability to scale what works. We can reserve key corridors and complete pre-engineering to keep a rail option alive.

Not participating this week: 

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

©2025 The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Visit sandiegouniontribune.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.