TO: AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM: Salvador Llamas, General Manager/Chief Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Alternate Service Plan Framework
ACTION ITEM
AGENDA PLANNING REQUEST: ☐
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Title
Consider approving the Alternate Service Plan Framework to be implemented in Calendar Year 2027 if the District has a significant budget deficit.
Staff Contact:
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Body
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE:
Goal - Financial Stability and Resiliency
Initiative - Financial Efficiency and Revenue Maximization
This report details the Alternate Service Plan Framework that, if approved, staff will use to develop service reduction recommendations to possibly be implemented in June 2027 if a significant budget deficit is likely. The framework directly correlates with service quality and financial efficiency strategic goals.
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
The District is projecting annual deficits averaging $50 million, beginning in FY 2027-28 and continuing in subsequent years. To address the FY 2026-27 shortfall and maintain current service levels, the District will receive an operating loan from the State. However, starting in FY 2027-28, new revenue sources will be required to sustain operations.
If new revenues are not secured, the District will need to reduce expenses to align with available funding. Staff developed the Alternate Service Plan Framework with two scenarios that will reduce the District’s operating costs and service level based on the current 85% of pre-pandemic level that the District is operating today:
• Scenario 1 estimates an expenditure reduction of about $35 million, plus $1.75 million in fare loss for a total of $36.75 million, resulting in an 11.4% service reduction
• Scenario 2 estimates an expenditure reduction of about $50 million, plus $3 million in fare loss for a total of $53 million, resulting in a 16.4% service reduction
The exact percentage reduction may vary depending on the final approved plan. The estimates also include a projected 5% and 6% decrease in farebox revenue, respectively, due to loss of riders from the reduction of low-productivity routes. The District’s overall farebox recovery rate is 8%.
The District will begin implementing deficit reduction cost-saving measures prior to enacting service reductions in June 2027. It is important to note that the level of service reductions included in the Alternate Service Plan will be adjusted based on our financial projections at the time staff develops the plan.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
Staff has developed a framework for an Alternate Service Plan that will be presented to the Board for approval later in the year and be implemented in June 2027, if necessary. The framework covered in this report includes:
• Guiding Principles and Parameters
• Summary of Existing Conditions
• Proposed Alternate Service Plan Framework
• Timeline and Next Steps
Guiding Principles and Parameters
The District’s Realign service plan, which implemented a new bus network on August 10, 2025, was guided by three, Board approved, guiding principles (equity, reliability, frequency) and developed through extensive community outreach and data analysis.
Staff used these same guiding principles to develop the Alternate Service Plan Framework. Overall, the goal is to maintain a system that is convenient and reliable for the greatest number of riders, while still providing adequate service in areas where bus service is the primary means of transportation.
In addition to the Realign guiding principles, staff used the recently updated Board Policy 545, which establishes revised service standards and design policy, as a guide for proposing where and when service reductions will occur.
Board Policy 545- Design Standards
Board Policy 545 establishes service level standards that define minimum coverage, frequency, and span for a Primary Route Network (PRN). Lines within the PRN generally serve AC Transit Equity Priority Communities (EPCs) and denser, higher ridership-supporting line segments. As of October 2025, the PRN includes the following lines: 1T, 6, 9, 12, 14, 18, shared 30/31 corridor, 27, 36, 40, 51A, 51B, 52, 54, 57, 62, shared 72/72M/72L corridor, 73, 76, 88, 97, shared 210/211 corridor, F, and NL. For non-PRN routes, service level standards are established for each route classification: Bus Rapid Transit, Rapid/Limited, Local, Freeway Express, All-Nighter and Supplementary Service. These standards will be used to inform the proposed service reductions.
Below is a summary of the minimum standards in the policy that staff used to develop the Alternate Service Plan framework and will also be used for the final plan.
• Percent of Service Area Residents Covered - This standard identifies the minimum percentage of the population within 1/4 mile of local service (70%) and the minimum percentage within 1/4 mile of high-frequency service (25%). It should be noted that the District has different standards for EPCs (85% and 40%, respectively).
• Frequency - Board Policy 545 establishes a minimum goal for the interval between bus trips for each service classification. Standards for weekdays and weekends are identical. The policy sets a minimum frequency for the PRN at every 30 minutes with other local services set at every 60 minutes.
Span of Service - The policy establishes a minimum goal for the hours of operation for each service classification. The hours of operation will vary depending on the demand in the community. In denser, more urbanized areas, bus service is expected to start earlier and end later. The standard for weekday and weekend service also differs, with weekday service starting earlier than weekend service along the PRN. The policy sets a minimum weekday service span from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM for the PRN (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekends). Other local services have a minimum span of service from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
Board Policy 545- Service Efficiency, Effectiveness and Quality Standards
Board Policy 545 establishes efficiency, effectiveness, and quality standards. Service Standards related to making decisions regarding service reductions include Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour (PPH), Cost per Passenger Boarding (CPP) and Passenger Load Factor standards.
• Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour (PPH) measures service effectiveness based on ridership generated for each service operated. Service classifications should, on average, meet the average productivity standard outlined in the policy. Routes within a classification are also compared against their classification average. Routes performing at 75% of the service classification average may be subject to corrective action (i.e. service reduction or elimination).
• Cost per Passenger Boarding (CPP) measures the cost of providing service on a per-passenger basis. The cost is driven by both hourly and mileage-based cost. Similar to productivity, service classifications should meet the average standard, and individual routes should be compared against the classification averages. Routes with costs exceeding 125% of the classification’s averages will be considered for potential service adjustments. This is particularly relevant for Transbay routes which travel longer distances per hour of service compared to a local route.
• Passenger Load Factor standards establish acceptable crowding levels. For most services, the maximum number of passengers should generally not exceed 125 percent of the seated capacity for more than 15% of trips. For Tempo BRT, this standard is raised to 200 percent.
Service Effectiveness data (PPH and CPP) will be used to identify where service is not meeting the established standards listed in Board Policy 545. Service Level standards for Frequency and Span of Service will be used as a guide to make sure service is not being reduced lower than the recommended minimum goals. As staff develops service reduction recommendations for the Alternate Service Plan, we will analyze the proposed network to ensure we are adhering to the Percent of Service Area Residents standard.
Along with minimum performance standards, staff will evaluate routes against each other for service efficiency and effectiveness. Routes within a category that are 75% or lower of the tier average PPH and 125% or higher of tier average CPP will be candidates for some type of service reduction.
A segment level analysis of low-performing service may highlight a specific portion of the route that significantly reduces the overall performance. This may allow only a portion of a route to receive a service reduction. If a segment level analysis is inconclusive, staff will consider modifications to the entire route (including elimination).
To create cost savings, routes may be streamlined, eliminating unnecessary delay caused by deviations or turning movements, thus reducing running time. This efficiency may reduce resource requirements. Some low-performing routes may not warrant the frequencies currently scheduled. Adjusting service levels to a low-performing route can increase productivity. Overall, staff will attempt to avoid segment modifications/eliminations that greatly alter the route network recently created under Realign.
Existing Conditions
While some frequencies and spans may vary, the District operates a similar service network on weekdays and weekends. There are, however, a few exceptions: there are three local lines (46L, 65, 67) that operate only on weekdays. Most Transbay lines are weekday-only and peak-only. Lines F, NL and O are the only Transbay lines that operate all day in both directions, on weekdays and weekends. In general, weekday service on any route will always be greater than or equal to weekend service.
To understand where reductions are possible, staff reviewed the number of platform hours, cost and productivity for all lines operated. Exhibit 1 summarizes weekday data by classification.
Exhibit 1- Summary of Weekday Metrics by Route Classification
|
Service Classification |
Daily Platform Hours |
Passenger per Platform Hour |
Passenger per Revenue Hour |
Annual Cost* |
|
BRT |
282.9 |
55.81 |
61.46 |
$11,542,320 |
|
Limited |
103.59 |
22.42 |
23.63 |
$4,226,472 |
|
Local |
4786.03 |
21.34 |
22.28 |
$195,270,024 |
|
Freeway Express |
511.44 |
16.44 |
19.98 |
$20,866,752 |
|
Supplementary |
197.77 |
21.25 |
40.82 |
$6,803,288 |
|
All Nighter |
96.52 |
10.54 |
11.81 |
$3,938,016 |
|
Total |
5978.25 |
22.39 |
24.13 |
$226,878,080 |
*Based on marginal cost of $160/per platform hour for Alternate Service Plan purposes
AC Transit also operates Early Bird Express service, which is express bus service on weekdays-only during the early morning (3:45 a.m. - 5:00 a.m.) when Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is closed. The service is fully funded by BART, and as such, is not included in the platform hours listed in Exhibit 1.
Platform Hours
A line’s platform hour calculation includes the time the bus takes to travel between the bus yard and the start or end of the line, travel time moving from one line to another, layover time, and revenue time. The District’s service network requires 2,016,614 platform hours annually (1,516,544 weekdays, 492,106 weekends) to operate. Exhibit 2 details the number of platform hours per route classification per day type.
Exhibit 2- Annual Platform Hours by Route Classification and Day-Type
|
Route Classification |
Weekdays |
Saturday |
Sunday |
Total |
Percentage of Total |
|
BRT |
72,140 |
14,562 |
15,407 |
102,109 |
5.1% |
|
Limited |
22,835 |
4,032 |
4,497 |
31,364 |
1.6% |
|
Local |
1,224,018 |
198,933 |
221,623 |
1,644,574 |
81.9% |
|
Freeway Express |
130,417 |
10,948 |
11,465 |
152,830 |
7.6% |
|
Supplementary |
42,521 |
- |
- |
42,521 |
2.1% |
|
All-Nighter |
24,613 |
5,030 |
5,610 |
35,253 |
1.8% |
|
Total |
1,516,544 |
233,505 |
258,602 |
2,008,651 |
100.0% |
The District operates significantly more service each weekday than on a Saturday or Sunday, due to higher weekday frequencies and spans on some lines, as well as weekday-only Transbay and Supplementary services. Weekday service accounts for 75.5% of annual platform hours.
Local service lines account for over 81.9% of annual platform hours. Freeway Express services, which include all Transbay (peak and all-day), account for 7.6% of annual platform hours.
Supplementary Service lines spend the highest percentage (92%) of their vehicle hours on non-revenue service (pulling in/out of the bus yard, travelling from one to line to another). For context, under 5% of local line vehicle hours are attributed to non-revenue service.
Transbay service costs more to operate due to the amount of time spent on non-revenue service (i.e. deadhead, freeway). For efficiency purposes, weekday peak-only afternoon Transbay service is typically tied to Supplementary Service.
Productivity
Productivity is calculated as the number of passengers per revenue hour (in-service time plus layover time). This allows staff to compare a line’s effectiveness against another line without introducing out-of-service travel time (also known as deadhead time) as a factor.
Supplementary Service lines are the most productive of all service types after the Tempo Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Each trip operated is timed with a school bell time, picking up or dropping off riders at a single time, instead of being dispersed throughout the day. However, ridership is low relative to other service types and platform hours are higher since Supplementary Service consists of one-way trips. Exhibit 3 details the weekday productivity of each route classification.
Exhibit 3- Weekday Productivity by Route Classification
|
Route Classification |
Revenue Hours (In-Service Hours + Layover) |
Daily Passengers* |
Percent of Total Daily Riders |
Productivity (Pass per Rev. Hour) |
|
BRT |
256.93 |
15,791 |
11.8% |
61.5 |
|
Rapid/Limited |
98.30 |
2,323 |
1.7% |
23.6 |
|
Local |
4584.00 |
102,158 |
76.3% |
22.3 |
|
Freeway Express |
420.94 |
8,412 |
6.3% |
20.0 |
|
Supplementary |
102.97 |
4,204 |
3.1% |
40.8 |
|
All Nighter |
86.18 |
1,018 |
0.8% |
11.8 |
|
Total |
5549.32 |
133,915 |
100.0% |
24.1 |
*Fall 2025 Data
To establish a framework, staff looked at the productivity of each line to see which lines were not performing within their route classification. Exhibit 4 details the twenty lowest performing local lines each weekday.
Exhibit 4- Lowest Performing Local/Limited Lines (Weekdays)*
|
Route |
Total Revenue Hours |
Total Platform Hours |
Estimated Avg Daily Pass |
Pass per Rev Hour |
|
281 |
29.07 |
30.90 |
236 |
8.1 |
|
19 |
33.32 |
33.87 |
291 |
8.7 |
|
251 |
17.88 |
20.18 |
181 |
10.1 |
|
56 |
52.85 |
55.22 |
536 |
10.1 |
|
239 |
77.85 |
82.98 |
918 |
11.8 |
|
28 |
66.5 |
68.58 |
785 |
11.8 |
|
46L |
13.67 |
14.04 |
166 |
12.1 |
|
216 |
25.46 |
27.23 |
310 |
12.2 |
|
211 |
103.71 |
109.73 |
1,297 |
12.5 |
|
65 |
28.65 |
29.48 |
363 |
12.7 |
|
34 |
62.78 |
65.55 |
817 |
13.0 |
|
93 |
69.74 |
73.96 |
930 |
13.3 |
|
7 |
50.9 |
52.00 |
680 |
13.4 |
|
200 |
92.89 |
97.71 |
1,265 |
13.6 |
|
67 |
14.11 |
14.68 |
193 |
13.7 |
|
70 |
62.83 |
64.35 |
860 |
13.7 |
|
231 |
52.77 |
58.57 |
766 |
14.5 |
|
71 |
65.8 |
68.32 |
964 |
14.7 |
|
31 |
88.88 |
92.38 |
1,315 |
14.8 |
|
98 |
76.65 |
77.72 |
1,135 |
14.8 |
|
35 |
59.23 |
62.65 |
885 |
14.9 |
*August 10, 2025 through December 31, 2025
Staff will use the lowest performing lines in a route classification as a starting point for either service reductions or complete elimination of lines, if necessary.
While productivity is a helpful metric to compare similar lines against each other, it can be misleading when you compare lines in different service classifications. Both Freeway Express and Supplementary Service trips require much more non-revenue service time than local service. Exhibit 5 details the ratio of non-revenue to revenue time for each service type.
Exhibit 5- Weekday (Daily) Non-Revenue to Revenue Time by Service Type
|
Classification |
Non-Revenue Time |
Revenue Time (In-Service Hours + Layover) |
Ratio (Non-Revenue/In-Service) |
|
BRT |
26.0 |
256.93 |
10.1% |
|
Rapid/Limited |
5.3 |
98.30 |
5.3% |
|
Local |
233.3 |
4584.00 |
4.4% |
|
Freeway Express |
90.5 |
420.94 |
21.5% |
|
Supplementary |
94.8 |
102.97 |
92.1% |
|
All-Nighter |
10.3 |
86.18 |
12.0% |
|
Total |
428.9 |
5549.32 |
7.7% |
Supplementary Service has the highest ratio of non-revenue to revenue service time, followed by Freeway Express service. This means that providing service in these classifications costs the District more to operate per revenue hour.
Operating Funding
This District receives Regional Measure 2 (RM2), Regional Measure 3 (RM3), Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP), and other funding to support the operations of various Transbay, All Nighter, Tempo, Supplementary, and other services based on the specific eligibility of the funding. RM2 and RM3 funding must be used on routes serving or feeding into bridge corridors. LCTOP funding must be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which generally means it can be used on routes that can be considered “new” and generating new ridership. The District is receiving over $31.7 million this fiscal year to fund various lines. For next fiscal year, the amounts should be similar except for RM3 which will be significantly less. Exhibit 6 details the various funding sources, associated lines and the funding the District is receiving.
Exhibit 6- Line Specific Operating Funds by Route Type
|
Funding Source |
Route Type |
Lines |
FY 25-26 Funding ($ millions) |
|
RM2 Operating |
Transbay |
F, L/LA, NL, O, P, U |
$4.6 |
|
RM2 Operating |
Owl |
800, 801 |
$1.3 |
|
RM2 Operating |
BRT |
Tempo |
$2.6 |
|
RM2 Operating |
Peninsula Transbay |
DB, DB1 |
$3.2 |
|
RM3 Operating |
Transbay |
E, F, G, J, L, NX, V |
$11.8 |
|
LCTOP Operating |
BRT |
Tempo |
$6.9 |
|
OUSD- Direct Payment |
Supplementary |
Various |
$0.5 |
|
Stanford University & Stanford Hospital |
Peninsula Transbay |
U |
$0.9 |
|
Total |
$31.7 |
If the District were to fully eliminate a line that receives funding, staff would have to identify other acceptable lines to spend those funds given the limitations mentioned above. If staff reduces service on a line, but operating costs still exceed the funding received, the funding would not be lost.
Recommended Alternate Service Plan Framework
Staff developed the following framework that will help guide the development of the Alternate Service Plan:
1. Maintain the Realign network. The District spent the better part of the past three years collecting feedback from riders, operators and the community, leading to the implementation of a new equitable bus network (Realign) in late 2025. Staff are not looking to re-imagine the current network as part of the proposed service reductions and instead are looking to maintain as much of the existing network as possible.
2. Minimize complete service eliminations. While eliminating complete lines is an option, staff will consider other options prior to doing so.
3. Focus on span and frequency reductions. Staff will lower frequency on lines that are not at capacity, reducing spans in the late night or early morning when ridership is low, and eliminating segments of a line that are not productive.
4. Restructure High-Cost Services. Lines with high cost per hour and low farebox recovery will be considered for restructuring.
5. Proportionately reduce service in Special District 1 (SD 1) and Special District 2 (SD 2). The District’s service area is divided into two special districts. Property taxes for the two districts are collected separately, and allocations for other local sales tax assistance are also made separately. Additionally, property owners in SD 1 pay an annual parcel tax to support District operations while those in SD 2 do not. SD 1 accounts for 90% of platform hours. Service reductions within SD 1 and 2 would be commensurate with the amount of service provided in each district. As such, staff is estimating to reduce approximately $47.7 million from SD 1 and $5.3 million from SD 2.
Utilizing the above framework, staff created tranches of various service cuts for two scenarios of service reductions: One that totals approximately $36.75 million and another that totals approximately $53 million. Tranches include:
• Span and Frequency Reduction to Local Lines
• Elimination of Least Productive Local Lines
• Span and Frequency Reduction to Transbay Lines (Weekday Only)
• Elimination of Transbay Lines (Weekday and Weekends)
• Elimination of Limited Service (Weekends Only)
Exhibit 7 estimates the amount of service that would need to be cut in each of the service classifications to reach both Scenario 1 - $36.75 million and Scenario 2 - $53 million savings. Scenario 1 preserves all of the PRN minus some Transbay PRN reductions. Scenario 2 includes both Local and Transbay PRN reductions in order to realize additional savings.
Exhibit 7- Alternate Service Plan Tranches
|
|
Scenario 1 |
Scenario 2 |
|
Day Type |
Service Classification |
Description |
Estimated Annual Cost Savings ($)* |
Percentage of Total Cost Savings Goal ($36.75 M) |
Estimated Annual Cost Savings ($)* |
Percentage of Total Cost Savings Goal ($50.00 M) |
|
Weekday |
Local- Non-PRN |
Span and Frequency Reductions |
$20.5M |
55.8% |
$20.5M |
38.6% |
|
|
Local- Non-PRN |
Eliminations |
$2.0M |
5.4% |
$2.0M |
3.8% |
|
|
Transbay- Non-PRN |
Span and Frequency Reductions |
$1.0M |
2.7% |
$1.0M |
1.9% |
|
|
Transbay- Non-PRN |
Eliminations |
$1.0M |
2.7% |
$1.0M |
1.9% |
|
|
Local- PRN |
Span and Frequency Reductions |
$0.0M |
0.0% |
$11.0M |
20.8% |
|
|
Transbay- PRN |
Span and Frequency Reductions |
$0.8M |
2.0% |
$1.5M |
2.8% |
|
Weekday Subtotal |
$25.3M |
68.6% |
$37.0M |
69.8% |
|
Weekends |
Local- Non- PRN |
Span and Frequency Reductions |
$6.0M |
16.3% |
$6.0M |
11.3% |
|
|
Local- Non-PRN |
Eliminations |
$0.5M |
1.4% |
$0.5M |
0.9% |
|
|
Transbay- Non-PRN |
Eliminations |
$0.5M |
1.4% |
$0.5M |
0.9% |
|
|
Local- PRN |
Span and Frequency Reductions |
$0.0M |
0.0% |
$4.5M |
8.5% |
|
|
Transbay-PRN |
Eliminations |
$3.0M |
8.2% |
$3.0M |
5.7% |
|
|
Rapid/Limited |
Eliminations |
$1.5M |
4.1% |
$1.5M |
2.8% |
|
Weekend Subtotal |
$11.5M |
31.4% |
$16.0M |
30.2% |
|
Total |
$36.8M |
100.0% |
$53.0M |
100.0% |
*Based on marginal cost of $160/per platform hour for alternate service plan purposes
Timeline and Next Steps
If the District secures a funding source to balance the budget at current service levels, staff will not bring the Alternate Service Plan to the Board for approval and not implement reductions in 2027.
The Alternate Service Plan would only be implemented if no new funding is available to cover the deficits starting in FY 27-28. If no new funding is available, staff proposes to implement service reductions as part of the June 2027 Service Change. The changes will require a public hearing prior to approval. Staff will begin developing the Alternate Service Plan immediately due to the long lead time required. If the Board approves this framework, staff will present the draft Alternate Service Plan to the Board in June 2026. Exhibit 8 details the tentative schedule between now and implementation.
Exhibit 8- June 2027 Service Change Schedule
|
Date |
Step |
|
3/25/26 |
Approve Service Reduction Framework |
|
6/10/26 |
Present Draft Service Plan |
|
TBD |
Board Sets Public Hearing with Draft Title VI Service Equity Analysis |
|
11/03/26 |
Election Day |
|
TBD |
Public Hearing* |
|
12/09/26 |
Board Approval* |
|
6/13/27 |
Implement Service Reductions* |
*Not needed if ballot measure passes
The District will need to set the public hearing prior to the November 2026 election in order to leave enough time for staff to implement the service reductions.
Public Outreach
The Division of External Affairs, Marketing, and Communications envisions a public education effort that informs our customers and key external audiences about the possibility of service reductions and how they can provide feedback. This effort will begin following the release of the draft service plan in late May or early June 2026, continuing through when the Board is scheduled to consider adoption of the final plan, assuming voters do not pass the regional revenue measure.
An outline of the envisaged education effort is provided in the following table, Exhibit 9. Given the condensed timeline, feedback opportunities will be limited to comments via email, at Open House-style events in the lobby of the District’s General Office prior to Board meetings, and during Board meetings via Zoom or in person. Engagement will be refined based on the Alternate Service Plan Framework adopted by the Board. In addition to the public outreach effort, there will need to be a comprehensive marketing and communications campaign that echoes the Realign communications effort to provide service reduction service information to riders. Tactics will include on bus, digital, and at-stop deliverables.
|
Service Reduction Step |
Focus of Outreach |
Public Outreach |
Communications |
|
03/25/26 - Board Approves Service Reduction Framework |
Raise awareness about the 03/25/26 Service Reduction Framework. Following adoption of the framework, raise awareness about the 06/10/26 Presentation of Draft Service Plan. |
Schedule announcements at meetings of city councils and key civic organizations advising key stakeholders of approved framework, possible service reductions, and 06/10/26 presentation of draft service plan. Email multilingual notification(s) to community organizations, political offices, city staff, schools, libraries, and transit advocates for inclusion in newsletters and distribution to subscribers. Incorporate approved service reduction framework into planned “Transit Talks” |
• eNews • Website update • Social media |
|
06/10/26 - Present Draft Service Plan to Board |
Raise awareness about the Board-approved draft service plan. Potential window of outreach: 06/11/26 - 08/12/26. |
Staff from Legislative Affairs & Community Relations and Service Planning deliver updates at meetings of city councils and key civic organizations. Email multilingual updates to community organizations, political offices, city staff, schools, libraries, and transit advocates re: draft service plan for inclusion in newsletters and distribution to subscribers. Leafleting at key high ridership stops and locations most affected by potential service reductions. Info-sharing at community events and festivals. Include draft service plan in community “Transit Talks.” 06/10/26 - Open House #1 in GO lobby with opportunity to engage staff and provide feedback. |
• eNews • Website updates • Social media • On-board car cards • On-board Brochures |
|
08/12/26 - Board Sets Public Hearing |
Raise awareness about the draft service plan and promote 11/18/26 Public Hearing. Sustained outreach through 11/18/26 (if needed). |
Continued outreach, as outlined above, to increase awareness and encourage community feedback. 08/12/26 - Open House #2 in GO lobby with opportunity to engage staff and provide feedback. |
• Legal notices |
|
11/18/26 - Public Hearing |
If Needed: Promote 12/09/26 Board meeting re: Service Reduction Approval. |
Continued outreach, as outlined above, to increase awareness and encourage community input. If Needed: 11/18/26 - Open House #3 in GO lobby with opportunity to engage staff and provide feedback. |
• Social media • On-board materials • Website updates |
|
12/09/26 - Board Approval |
If Needed: Raise awareness about Board-approved service reduction plan. |
If Needed: Sustained outreach through 06/13/27. If Needed: 12/09/26 - Open House #4 in GO lobby with opportunity to engage staff and provide feedback. |
|
|
06/13/27 - Implement Service Reductions |
If Needed: Raise awareness about 06/13/27 service reductions. |
If Needed: Sustained outreach to customers and external stakeholders regarding planned service reductions. |
|
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The framework gives the District direction and a starting point for the potential Alternate Service Plan. By focusing on reducing span and frequency, most of the existing network will remain in place. One of the many disadvantages of reducing service is that some of the lowest performing lines may be eliminated in order to reach the targeted reduction goal.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
While staff prefers to systematically review the lowest performing lines and provide recommendations for service change, another way to achieve cost savings is to eliminate entire service types in lieu of reducing weekday local service. Potential candidates include eliminating All Nighter Service ($3.0 million), Supplementary Service ($11.3 million) and all weekend service that is not funded by an outside source ($78 million).
Staff also explored completely eliminating Transbay service because it costs more to operate due to the amount of time spent on non-revenue service (i.e. deadhead, freeway). However, the District receives RM2 and RM3 funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to offset the Transbay costs. Some all-day and peak-hour Transbay service reductions are included in the framework.
Staff could also consider service cuts to certain weekdays (i.e. Mondays and Fridays) when ridership demand is lower. Assuming the level of service for such a proposal would fall between weekday and Sunday service, the District could potentially save a rough order of magnitude of $5 million annually. Staff will need to conduct additional analysis and investigation to determine the feasibility, including how staff would create weekly operator assignments.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION/POLICIES:
Board Policy 545 - Service Standards and Design Policy
23-250k - Realign Final Network Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Presentation
Prepared by:
Sean Diest Lorgion, Acting Service Planning Manager
In Collaboration with:
Arlee Young, Director of Transportation
Steven Jones, Director of Legislative Affairs and Community Relations
Approved/Reviewed by:
Aaron Vogel, Chief Operating Officer
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development & Planning
Aimee L. Steele, General Counsel/Chief Legal Officer
Claudia Burgos, Executive Director of External Affairs and Customer Experience
Nichele Laynes, Director of Marketing, Communications & Customer Service