When the Irvine City Council voted in April to shut down the city’s iShuttle program and roll its buses into the newer Irvine Connect system, councilmembers agreed the city’s approach to public transportation needed a second look.
But they split on what comes next, and how far the city should go in building out a full-scale bus network in a suburb largely built around cars.
Irvine’s iShuttle officially ended service on June 28, closing the chapter on a nearly 20-year-old commuter program that primarily served business parks and office centers. Usage had declined since the pandemic, city staffers said, and over the past year, the single Irvine Connect route along Yale Avenue and Barranca Parkway carried more passengers than all three iShuttle routes combined.
Designed for local circulation within the city, Irvine Connect is aimed at residents, officials say, and launched as a city-run pilot in 2023. It was expanded in July with five new stops reaching north to Portola Parkway and an extra bus to keep wait times to under 20 minutes.
City spokesperson Linda Fontes said boardings rose 15% during the first week of the expanded service compared to the same weekdays the week prior, a sign that interest may be growing. But councilmembers and transit experts remain divided on whether a citywide system is realistic or sustainable in Irvine.
“I think we’re on our way with a terrific vision for a transit system,” said Mayor Larry Agran, who has long championed public transit. “Overcoming the one principal shortcoming from the very beginning in the city, which is, we didn’t put transit first.”
Agran and Councilmember Kathleen Treseder have been the strongest advocates for building out a much larger system, calling it a smart investment in mobility and climate goals. But others, including Councilmember Mike Carroll, have been wary of moving too quickly or committing too much money before gauging public support.
“Everyone we’ve heard from were mass transit advocates, the same people who gave us CicloIrvine, the same people who prefer less cars, and that’s fine, that is a position,” Carroll said during a council meeting in April. “But what about the rest of the people in Irvine?”
Carroll said he wants to poll residents before spending millions on buses they may never use.
“If you drive cars, will you get out of cars and get on buses?” he asked. “I think it’s a bridge too far.”
A city built for cars
Irvine’s master-planned design is car-centric. Wide arterial roads and abundant parking have resulted in lower local congestion, making it hard to convince residents to leave their vehicles behind.
“There is no congestion in Irvine,” said Michael McNally, a longtime civil and environmental engineering professor at UC Irvine and a researcher at the university’s Institute of Transportation Studies. “Yes, there is on the 5 and the 405, but that’s not Irvine. Drive on the city streets, even in the peak hours, traffic is flowing fast at the speed limit.”
That’s one of several reasons why UCI professor Michael Hyland, also with the institute, said he’s “generally skeptical of a kind of robust, high-quality transit network in Irvine.”
“It’s very challenging to operate any public transportation in Irvine, given the wealth of the area and the land use and the design,” he said.
Councilmembers who are open to expanding the transit system also recognize the logistical hurdles.
“The way Irvine is designed, it’s designed for cars. It’s designed for bikes, walking and trails,” Councilmember James Mai said. “This is the way that the city was designed, and that’s nobody’s fault now. Public transit would be great, but that’s going to need a shift in the mentality of the average resident.”
Mai added that many families in his district have told him they prefer to drive, saying it’s simply easier to take a car, especially with young kids, when going to places such as the beach or the Great Park.
Ridership of Irvine Connect reached 141,000 in its first year, peaking at 740 boardings on April 10, according to city staff.
So that’s about six boardings per bus per hour, Hyland said. “That’s not very productive. It’s not terrible, but it’s not very productive.”
In April, in addition to voting to expand the existing Irvine Connect route with five new stops including Northwood High School — which will cost the city nearly $500,000 annually for 16 years — the City Council also asked the city’s staff to study and develop budget plans for two additional shuttle routes that would link John Wayne Airport, UCI and the Irvine Business Complex, as well as a separate route to serve the Great Park. Carroll and Mai voted no on all items except the expansion of the existing Irvine Connect route.
The 16-year figure comes from the city’s ongoing reimbursement agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority. Under the agreement, Irvine can claim up to $3 million per year in Proposition 116 funds — it’s a statewide rail funding measure passed by voters in 1990 — through 2041 to help pay for its transit systems, Fontes said. That’s part of a long-term funding deal made years ago, when the city transferred its unused Prop 116 rail funds — originally totaling $125 million — to OCTA in exchange for future transit funding using local Measure M2 sales tax dollars.
About $88.5 million in Prop 116 funding is still available for Irvine to use, Fontes said.
An expansion of Irvine Connect to the Great Park with 20-minute service would result in 19 buses and 75 additional stops and would cost about $256 million over 16 years. Of that, city staff estimate Irvine would need to cover around $168 million, or roughly $10.5 million per year. Officials are considering whether to borrow against Prop 116 funds to get a lump sum upfront, but the city would still need to close the funding gap with other sources.
Treseder said that’s a reasonable ask for a program that’s working.
“We spend a lot on projects that I think are more frivolous, just to give you an example, the gondola project that we are contemplating for the Great Park. The council did say that we wanted to do a pilot, which means that it would cost us $6.1 million. And that program is overwhelmingly unpopular with the residents,” she said.
By contrast, she considers Irvine Connect as one of the most popular things the city has done lately.
“I get so many complaints from the public about our traffic, and I don’t like sitting in traffic either,” she said. “One of the best ways to rectify that is to have good public mass transit … I get so many emails unsolicited from residents who say they have really enjoyed taking iConnect.”
Mai said he supports continuing the expansion, but wants the city to take its time.
“Going from like two routes to, let’s say, 10 routes or whatever amount it is, that’s a jump, and it’s not a gradual jump,” he said. “I want it to work, but I want it to make sense.”
Hyland said the city needs to clarify what it wants from its transit system.
“It seems to me that the city wants to have transit to have transit, maybe some environmental benefits. My perspective is that transit in a place like Irvine is not the best solution for improving sustainability,” he said. “But if the goal is to connect young people, elderly people, people who can’t operate a vehicle to their key destinations, then there really are no better alternatives … which then becomes how much does the city want to spend on serving those trips?”
City officials say boardings per hour and individual stop usage will help them assess whether a route is successful enough to keep or expand.
McNally said a smarter move might be to work with OCTA, which operates the region’s bus and transit system, instead of building a new system.
“Another option they may not have considered is working on a deal with OCTA where they could subsidize OCTA service in the city, or, for example, subsidize the cost of a bus pass to Irvine residents,” he said.
Eric Carpenter, an OCTA spokesperson, said only 12% of people who work in Irvine actually live in the city, and 73% of Irvine residents work elsewhere.
“So planning for transportation on a regional basis — getting residents into and out of the city every day — is essential,” he said in an email. “We recognize that cities pursuing transit solutions independently may face significant challenges. OCTA offers its planning expertise and support, ensuring every community can develop solutions that align with its character and meet the needs of its residents.”
McNally suggested making connections between the Metrolink or Amtrak stations to the business locations in the city could help.
“People commute in and out of Irvine all the time. If (Irvine Connect) serves only in the city, it probably can’t do that,” he said.
Agran said the time is right for Irvine to move forward.
“We’ve got now the Great Park, which attracts literally millions of visitors every year, and we’ve got the Spectrum and many households around there. We’ve got nodes of great density from one end of the city to the other,” he said. “Phase one has performed remarkably well and given us the encouragement to go forward so that we will have a city-wide, integrated transit system, free, non-polluting buses with just 20 minute headways. I’m very confident it’s going to succeed.”
Still, experts say Irvine’s layout and resident preferences will be hard to overcome.
“Irvine works, whether you like it or not, it works,” McNally said. “People want to live in Irvine, not because of transit service, because of the schools, the parks, everything. Who’s going to take the option of using public transit, which is by definition, even if it’s free, going to be slower. I just don’t think there’s a market for it in Irvine, other than connecting key activity centers and catching people that might come in by a train and that need to get somewhere else to the city.”
The city is planning a new survey of the community to gauge ridership demand and identify which routes should come next, according to Fontes. The draft survey is expected to reach the City Council for review in August.
