Measure C Must Match Fresno’s Reality—Fund Roads Where Demand Actually Exists

Fresno County is at a crossroads as voters consider proposed Measure C allocations, particularly the increased funding for public transit. On paper, the idea sounds admirable. Who would not want a more environmentally friendly and equitable transportation system, one that mirrors places like San Francisco or New York City where public transit is a central part of daily life?

But good intentions do not guarantee good policy. When it comes to transportation funding, Fresno County must confront reality, not aspiration. The reality is this: Fresno is not built like San Francisco or New York, and no amount of funding will change that fundamental fact.

Fresno County is vast, spread out, and car dependent by design. Our major commercial centers such as Fashion Fair and River Park, large grocery hubs, medical campuses, and employment centers are not located where most people live. Daily life here involves long distances, multiple stops, and schedules that do not align with fixed route public transit. For most residents, especially families and working professionals, driving is not a preference. It is a necessity.

This is particularly true for Gen Z, a group often cited as being more transit friendly. While Gen Z may express support for public transportation in theory, local data shows that actual usage remains limited. Fresno County transit surveys indicate that more than nine in ten bus riders lack access to a car, meaning they rely on transit because they have no other option. Only about seven percent of riders have access to a vehicle and choose public transit anyway. This suggests that public transit in Fresno primarily serves those without alternatives, not a broad population choosing transit over driving.

Transportation policy must be guided by a basic economic principle: supply and demand. You do not dramatically increase supply when demand is limited and unlikely to grow in the foreseeable future. Fresno County already struggles with low ridership relative to transit spending, and reallocating even more funding toward public transit risks deepening that imbalance.

Meanwhile, the demand for safe and reliable roads is overwhelming and universal. Nearly every resident uses Fresno County roads daily. Poor road conditions are not a minor inconvenience. They carry real financial consequences. Potholes damage tires, suspensions, and alignments, placing an unnecessary financial strain on working families. Allocating disproportionate funding to underutilized transit while roads deteriorate is not just inefficient. It is unfair.

This is not an argument against public transit altogether. Fresno County should maintain a functional and targeted transit system that serves those who truly rely on it, including seniors, individuals with disabilities, and residents without access to a vehicle. But funding levels must reflect actual usage, not aspirational comparisons to cities with entirely different geographies, densities, and lifestyles.

We should resist the temptation to believe that Fresno can simply will itself into becoming a transit first city. Urban form matters. Density matters. Distance matters. Until Fresno County fundamentally changes how and where people live, work, and shop, cars will remain the primary mode of transportation.

Measure C should reflect that reality. Roads are the backbone of Fresno County’s economy and daily life. Investing in their maintenance and improvement benefits everyone, across generations, income levels, and communities. Smart transportation policy means putting resources where they will do the most good, not where they sound the most ideal.

If we want Measure C to succeed, it must be grounded in practicality, fiscal responsibility, and an honest assessment of how Fresno County actually functions, not how we wish it did.

Solomon Verduzco

Chair, Central Valley YR