The main reason the COVID pandemic hasn’t decimated San Francisco’s transit system is federal emergency funding.
While money to run the system has been a lifeline, more than half of the city’s riders have not returned, in large part because downtown offices remain shuttered — and the virus’s delta variant is adding more uncertainty.
That’s why the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency finds itself at a crossroads, pulled in two strategic directions. Should it restore service to pre-pandemic levels, despite the costs, even if much of SF isn’t likely to return to the old normal anytime soon? Or should the agency’s planners make big changes to bus and train routes in anticipation of a rearranged city?
That tension was laid bare this week, as Muni officials presented their plans to SF’s Board of Supervisors, who oversee the agency’s work. Most of the supervisors then voted, in a resolution that has no legal teeth, to bring Muni back to 2019 levels.
The dreaded death spiral
Even before the pandemic, Muni faced a budget crisis partly because of its reliance on unpredictable sources of revenue. While the budget grew from $828 million in 2013–14 to $1.2 billion in 2018–2019, the agency’s main source of revenue — parking fees and rider fares — didn’t keep pace, dropping from 60 percent to 51 percent of the total.
When the pandemic hit in March 2020, transit officials say those revenues cratered. An overwhelming fear in public transit is the “death spiral” — less revenue leads to service cuts, which leads to fewer riders and less revenue, and so on.
Along with nearly all other agencies across the country, SFMTA sidestepped the death spiral in early 2020 because of emergency federal funding.
That lifeline continues. SFMTA officials say they expect to receive $1.1 billion in federal dollars to aid its recovery, but half of it has already been spent retaining services and preventing layoffs. Another $300 million will also be spent this year on recovery, leaving a few hundred million dollars to cover expected losses through fiscal year 2025–26.
Once the emergency funds run out, the potential for a death spiral returns.
On the other hand, if SFMTA returns to full service too soon and runs empty buses and trains, they could run out of money, which would also lead to severe service cuts.
Officials are all too aware of the tight bind. On Tuesday, Julie Kirschbaum, SFMTA’s director of transit, told the San Francisco County Transportation Authority — which is made up of all 11 SF supervisors — that “we need to find the most sustainable path for service, where we’re increasing service faster than economic recovery, but not so fast that we run out of resources.”
The problem isn’t unique to San Francisco. But according to Federal Transit Administration data compiled by SF transit advocates Chris Arvin and Kat Siegal, SFMTA is falling behind.
Compared to agencies of similar size, it ranked 24 of 25 in transit recovery through May 2021, with 68 percent of service hours operating compared with before the pandemic. Only BART is ranked lower.
Three roads to travel
On Tuesday, Kirschbaum and her boss, SFMTA director Jeffrey Tumlin, took heat from Sup. Dean Preston, the leader of the “100 percent restore” faction, who, one week earlier, had a pointed exchange with Mayor London Breed at the weekly Board of Supervisors meeting when Breed refused to commit to a full service restoration.
This week, Preston accused the transit officials of only pretending to have a plan for full restoration, raising their hackles. “It’s really misleading to say we haven’t committed to a plan,” Kirschbaum said.
She and Tumlin emphasized that the agency, working with a consultant, is preparing three options, one of which is a full return to pre-pandemic service. The other two plans take into account COVID’s profound effect on the city.
We need to have a laser focus on hiring as we continue our recovery.
SFMTA director of transit julie kirschbaum
“We want to make sure that we take advantage of this unprecedented time to accommodate the changes in travel patterns that COVID has accelerated,” Tumlin said, noting that some patterns were evident before the pandemic struck.
He also cautioned that the agency has “a responsibility” to get the most from current limited service while working toward more resources and an expanded system.
Kirschbaum added that a return to the past is blocked by “dire” personnel shortages. “In the transit division alone, the SFMTA needs to hire almost 500 non-operator positions,” she said. The infrastructure and planning divisions have 30 percent and 50 percent shortages, respectively, she noted. “We need to have a laser focus on hiring as we continue our recovery.”
With those constraints, Kirschbaum expects an 85 percent service level come January. Restoring the same level of pre-COVID service hours will only be possible with a fast recovery or an influx of new funds. (Muni ideally needs to operate at a 110 percent pre-Covid service level for the city to meet both its economic and climate goals.)
Deaf ears
Tumlin and Kirschbaum’s arguments did not sway most supervisors. Hours later at the weekly board meeting, they voted 9–2 to adopt a resolution from Preston and progressive colleague Sup. Connie Chan urging SFMTA to reinstate all lines and pre-COVID service hours by Dec. 31. They also asked that the agency release a written plan for restoration by Sept. 30.
“There is a debate in the transit world between ridership and coverage,” Preston said at the meeting. “You get more ridership when you invest in core lines, you get more coverage when you go out into neighborhoods and cover. That is a conversation we as a city need to have.” But he went on to say that now is not the time to have that conversation “when people don’t have their [bus] lines.”
Instead, he wants to bring back lines and service hours and then embark on a lengthy community engagement process. One local transit advocate agreed. “There are ways in which some routes might be improved,” Cat Carter of the San Francisco Transit Riders told The Frisc. “But I am concerned about those changes happening too fast and riders not getting input.”
Supervisors Rafael Mandelman and Catherine Stefani cast the dissenting votes.
Mandelman voted against the full-restoration resolution for two reasons. One, it asks SFMTA to do what they’ve already said they cannot do because of workforce shortages. Two, making changes now could help San Francisco emerge from the pandemic with a better transit system.
“The resolution seems to be saying that our first priority and MTA’s first priority should be reestablishing the system that we had and then we can think about how to change and tinker with it,” Mandelman said on Tuesday. “I’m not convinced that’s right, particularly if it’s going to be many more months before we are able to have the full levels of service that we had prior to the pandemic. I think as they turn service on, it may make sense to put more in areas where we didn’t have it. and less in areas where we did.”
Behind the restoration debate is, of course, money. Muni’s revenues rely on parking and rider fares. They can’t borrow outside money for transit, thanks to the 1999 proposition that established SFMTA, according to Tumlin. A sales tax approved two decades ago goes mainly toward big improvements, not running buses and trains. Voters might be asked to replace that tax next year with a new one that provides a steady funding stream for transit; while SF voters tend to be incredibly generous, it’s a long ways away.
Meanwhile, the field for ideas seems to be wide open. Preston took to Twitter Thursday to ask his followers how Muni might be funded. No surprise in this town: He got plenty of responses.
