Page One

A week after voters narrowly defeated a $1.05 billion bond to seismically retrofit BART facilities, the transit agency is searching for new sources of funding. 

“I don’t think there’s any question that we have to proceed with a seismic retrofit,” said Joel Keller, president of the BART Board of Directors. “We have a duty as stewards of the system.” 

Keller said the agency will look for new pools of state and federal money to pay for a retrofit of the transbay tube, connecting Oakland and San Francisco, and a host of other projects. But in the end, he suggested, BART will likely pursue a combination of fare increases and a new, less-expensive bond measure on the next ballot. 

“Maybe $1 billion is the psychological barrier,” Keller said, arguing that a $900 million bond coupled with $100 million in fare increases might be more palatable to voters. 

Voters in three counties, San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa cast votes on the $1.05 billion Measure BB last week, with 64.2 percent approving. 

The bond required a two-thirds majority, or 66 percent of the vote, to pass. 

BART put the measure on the ballot after a 1 1/2-year, $25 million study, completed in June, found the system vulnerable to a major earthquake. 

If passed, the measure would have raised property taxes in all three counties an average of $7.80 per $100,000 of assessed value for the next 40 years. 

But critics argued that riders, not property owners, should foot the bill for any seismic retrofit. The Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, which led the fight against Measure BB, said fare increases starting at 11 cents and rising to 59 cents would eventually cover costs. 

Alliance President Ken Hambrick stuck to the same argument Monday. He said BART, in the wake of the Measure BB defeat, should now turn to a fare increase if it wants to brace against a major earthquake. 

“If they really believe in this, they ought to come back with a fare-based bond,” he said. 

But Keller argued that a retrofitting program rooted in substantial fare hikes could hurt ridership. 

“The thing I’m worried about is public transportation, in order to be viable, has to be affordable,” he said. 

Hambrick countered that an 11 cent jump would not turn riders away from BART. But at least one BART rider interviewed Monday, David Jameson of Oakland, bristled at the idea of riders, rather than property owners, paying for a retrofit. 

“I think rich people should pay for it,” he said. 

Whatever the political prospects of a new bond, BART board director Roy Nakadegawa, who represents parts of Berkeley and several surrounding cities, said the transit agency must pursue it. 

“Whether it’s doable or not, I’m saying it’s necessary,” said Nakadegawa who, like Keller, supports a mix of bond money and fare increases. 

Nakadegawa said quick movement on a new bond is necessary to ensure the public safety sooner rather than later. He also said the longer BART waits, the more the price will escalate. 

“I think it’s foolish to hold off,” he said. 

Nakadegawa said BART has learned one important lesson from the Measure BB defeat. Next time, Nakadegawa said, the transit agency will have to do a better job convincing voters of the traffic nightmare that would result from a BART shutdown. 

“Five years ago, when workers went on strike, it was a tremendous backup, not just on the [Bay] bridge,” he said. 

Keller suggested that an improved economy, in the next couple of years, might put voters in a more generous mood. 

Contact reporter at scharfenberg@ 

berkeleydailyplanet.net