BART’s Board of Directors met Thursday to get a clearer picture of what contingency plans are available to the cash-strapped agency if a ballot measure planned for this November fails to give it a financial lifeline.
The transit agency is facing immediate and long-term annual budget shortfalls of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the Board must settle on a plan to make severe cuts and even close stations in case the ballot measure, which would raise the sales tax in counties where BART operates, doesn’t pass.
The Board’s staff released a report last week giving the public a preview of ideas to make drastic cuts to the system’s service in two phases and potentially wind down service completely in a third phase if its budget can’t be balanced at that time. Their findings were bleak: closing up to 15 stations, no night service, and increasing fares as much as 50%. The very-worst case scenario would be shutting down the transit system altogether.
The Board of Directors held Thursday’s public workshop in Oakland to receive the staff report in an informational presentation, probe the issue, formulate a plan further before action is considered at a later meeting, and give the public an opportunity to weigh in.
Ultimately, staff was directed to come up with alternative methods for deciding which stations would close other than simply targeting those with the lowest ridership volume, and experiment with different fare increases to possibly reduce or delay station closures.
Phase One and Phase Two by the numbers
The first two phases would involve station closures, fare increases and layoffs. Both phases would be needed but would be made in two stages to assess the impacts from the first phase to project financial feasibility for the second phase.
Phase One would be implemented in January. About 63% of train hours would be cut, including trains arriving every half hour instead of every 20 minutes, and eliminating night service. Ten stations would be closed. Fares would increase at least 30% and deeper cuts to maintenance, policing and support services would be made.
Phase Two would happen at the start of the next fiscal year, in July. Another five stations would close, for a total of 15. About 25% of the system’s tracks would be closed, and a total of 70% of operating hours would be cut, including running only rush hour service. A proposal to shut down the Blue Line that terminates in Dublin/Pleasanton was one of the most contested aspects of the staff presentation.
About 1,170 unionized support positions would also be eliminated as part of Phase Two in areas like maintenance, customer service, planning and logistics.
One of the biggest issues was which stations could be targeted for closure in the plan’s different phases. The preliminary plan released last week drew pushback from Board President Melissa Hernandez, who represents District 5, where the Blue Line provides the connection to the rest of the system.
She said in a written statement ahead of the workshop, and reiterated during the meeting, that closing several stations on the line in Alameda County and ultimately discontinuing the line as part of Phase Two was a bad idea and unfair to Alameda County residents.
Multiple public commenters told the Board in person and remotely that they objected to the station closures where they were proposed and argued it would cut off East Bay communities from getting around the region.
Many also chastised the Board for integrating the Uber app with the BART app, arguing it was counterproductive to supporting public transit.
But while some of the time was spent debating which stations would close as part of Phase One, District 9 Director Edward Wright said the difference was essentially irrelevant since Phase One was simply to prepare for the cuts that would be implemented in Phase Two no matter what.
The ballot measure, which is in the signature gathering phase, is called “Connect Bay Area.” It is meant to give BART, SF Muni, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), Caltrain, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) long term funding, and comes in addition to an emergency short term bridge loan agreed to last month between the state and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
The short-term loan will prevent a more immediate financial disaster that would see BART about $370 million short of its budget next fiscal year, which begins July 1.
The ballot measure would raise the sales tax by a half-cent in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Mateo by a half-cent and in San Francisco by 1 cent for 14 years.
‘No two ways’
BART’s long term budget woes are so deep it will still be faced with a deficit of tens of millions of dollars even if the sales tax measure passes. It is facing deficits of over $380 million a year through 2031 without the measure passing and would still be left with annual budget deficits of at least $45 million if it passes, according to the staff’s presentation.
Service reductions alone won’t solve the problem, as the Board is trying to strike a balance between cuts and revenue from fares, which the system relies heavily on for its operating budget. Closing some stations and reducing some track milage could save money, but cutting too much would be counterproductive as the lost revenue would eclipse the savings.
The same holds true of fare increases, which can reduce ridership if they are raised too high. The current proposal to raise fares by 50% in Phase Two would reduce ridership by about 18% but still have a net positive impact of $58 million, according to the staff’s projections.
The two phases are meant to be implemented together, with a gap of about six months to assess whether savings from Phase One would make Phase Two feasible. Phase One would not be enough to prevent Phase Two but the goal would be to run the service at that reduced level if financially possible.
At the end of the day, if this measure isn’t successful, you know, stations are getting closed.
Robert Powers, BART General Manager
Phase One would essentially give the Board a preview of the effects on that balancing act that station closures and fare increases would have ahead of a potential Phase Two.
Ultimately, if the system can’t operate at that projected reduced Phase Two level, BART would declare bankruptcy and end passenger service entirely.
BART’s Deputy General Manager Michael Jones told the Board that staff would work on creating alternatives to the plan to present at the Board’s next meeting on Feb. 26. Action could be considered at that meeting or at the Board’s following meeting on March 12.
At different points, Directors veered from the reality they were trying to present to the public. BART District 6 Director Liz Ames said she didn’t want to have any stations close, leading District 3 Director Barnali Ghosh to wonder aloud if they were in the same meeting.
There was continued discussion on whether stations proposed to close in January could be kept open another six months.
Whatever other options are presented, BART will look different without the funding created by the Connect Bay Area sales tax measure, General Manager Robert Powers told the Board.
“At the end of the day, if this measure isn’t successful, you know, stations are getting closed,” Powers said. “There’s no two ways about that.”