Bay Area Transit Agencies Saved $1 Billion Since 2020. Can They Sustain Those Savings?

It comes as the four transit operators, which collectively represent 80% of public transit ridership in the region, stare down a fiscal cliff. Operators hope a funding measure making its way to the November ballot, which could generate $1 billion annually, comes to the rescue.

But critics argue the measure could reward bad behavior by bailing out fiscally irresponsible agencies.

Steve Glazer, a former state senator who represented most of Contra Costa County and parts of Alameda County, has been a vocal critic of BART’s financial management and argued the regional agency hasn’t understood where long-term service reductions need to be made and cut operations accordingly.

“They’ve had four years to anticipate this fiscal cliff that they claim they’re going over and yet have taken none of the more substantial steps necessary to financially right-size the system, so that the revenues are matching the expenditure[s],” Glazer said.

Trost pushed back, arguing that cutting service before allowing voters to decide on the measure would lead to a decrease in ridership and could send BART down a deeper financial spiral.

“We don’t believe cutting service is going to serve the Bay Area … the Bay Area relies on the service level we’re providing now,” she said. “Right now, if you come from Dublin, you’re waiting 20 minutes for a train… [State] Senator Glazer is saying that people should be waiting more, and we disagree.”

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom authorized a $590 million emergency bridge loan to prevent Bay Area agencies from shuttering stations and slashing service. Trost said BART officials predicted they would run out of those funds next month.

“But because of all of these efficiency measures, we’ve been able to carry that money over into fiscal year [20]27, which is going to help us reduce our deficit,” she told KQED.

Before the pandemic, regional population and job growth led transit agencies to expand service and make large capital investments, the report states. But the pandemic disrupted that trend and forced agencies to cut back service, freeze hiring and hold back on investing in new lines and schedules.

Even as riders have returned, commuting patterns have changed for the foreseeable future.

The report also details ways transit agencies could improve ridership and customer experience without incurring new costs. BART and Muni, for example, could improve fare compliance and enforcement and implement demand-based pricing for parking at their stations.

Parisa Safarzadeh, a San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency spokesperson, said that while many of the cuts detailed in the report represented one-time cost savings, they also illustrate how the agency managed its finances with precision in a time of uncertainty.

“We understand it’s not enough to rely on one-time sources or stop-gap cuts as a sustainable way to address our financial challenges,” she said to KQED in an emailed statement. “We appreciate how this review underscores the need to establish a ‘new normal’ in how we continue the hard work to build on this momentum.”

Last October, Newsom signed a bill that allowed advocates to start fundraising and gathering signatures for the measure to appear on the November ballot. SB 63 also required a third party to conduct a two-phase financial efficiency review. This report marks the first phase of that process. If voters approve the measure in November, a second review would be required to evaluate further cost-saving strategies and financial sustainability.

The law also requires the agencies to adopt some of the recommendations to improve service and ridership experience by July 1. BART’s Board is expected to vote on it during its first meeting in June.