SFMTA board directs staff to pursue targeted summer service changes after split vote

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency board voted 3–2 on March 20 to direct staff to pursue a package of service changes and agency program adjustments intended to close an estimated $50 million shortfall that begins in July 2025.

The board’s instruction follows a months‑long review and a public comment period that included hundreds of riders, community groups, students and two members of the Board of Supervisors who urged preserving Muni service.

The agency said the $50 million shortfall is separate from — and in addition to — a larger structural funding gap it has identified for 2026–27. Sean Kennedy, SFMTA’s chief planning and implementation officer, told the board the agency had already identified about $35 million in program and one‑time adjustments and was proposing further service changes or reserve use to cover the remaining amount.

Kennedy outlined a package that minimizes frequency reductions and preserves connections where possible. The changes the agency proposed for staff to pursue include routing selected east‑west lines to turn on Market Street rather than continuing downtown (examples cited: some 5, 9 and 31 runs would turn at Market), and a consolidation proposal that would combine the 6 and 21 routes while continuing to serve the Parnassus and Hayes corridors. Kennedy said the plan would not change span hours for most lines and that the turnarounds would not occur in the late evening or on weekends when service needs differ.

“We’re about 95% recovered on the weekends,” Kennedy said in describing ridership trends he said the board should protect when possible.

SFMTA staff also described roughly $35 million in programmatic adjustments, including shifting certain capital‑eligible sign and paint shop labor to capital projects, delaying some vehicle midlife rehabs, reducing consultant and professional‑services budgets and negotiating adjustments with BART for shared station maintenance costs. The board was told that a separate package of parking‑optimization proposals could contribute roughly $18 million in annual revenue or savings; that package was considered separately under agenda item 12.

The board split repeatedly on whether to use reserves, approve service changes, or seek additional program cuts. Director [first reference] Chen voted to direct staff to pursue the service‑change option; Directors Hemminger and Kahina voted against that motion. The motion passed 3–2. The board instructed staff to return on April 1 with a Title VI equity analysis and detailed implementation steps; staff said service changes would be implemented on a timeline intended to take effect before the July 1 fiscal year start if approved.

The public record during the meeting showed strong, repeated opposition to service cuts from transit‑rider groups, neighborhood associations, seniors and a large group of middle‑school students who told the board they rely on Muni for school and family trips. Transit advocates repeatedly urged the board to use the agency’s contingency reserve for the immediate shortfall and spend political capital now to preserve service ahead of any funding measure discussions.

“Please do not cut muni service this summer,” Dylan Fabris of San Francisco Transit Riders told the board during public comment, calling for the agency to use reserves and buy time to develop longer‑term revenue options.

SFMTA Chief Financial Officer Bree Mahorter described the contingency operating reserve and the tradeoffs for dipping into it. “Our contingency operating reserve is a reserve of 10,” she said, explaining the existing board policy that sets the target reserve at 10 percent of the operating budget and noting that tapping the balance would create a replenishment obligation in future budget cycles.

Supervisors also appeared at the meeting. District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmood told the board his office opposes service cuts and pledged to work with the agency and the board of supervisors to find alternatives to closing service lines.

The board’s vote was procedural direction to staff, not final adoption of specific route modifications. Staff said they would provide the Title VI equity analysis, legal review and technical implementation plans at the April 1 meeting and return with final resolutions for any route or frequency changes and for any use of contingency reserves. Staff said changes that require new board action will return as formal items for a subsequent vote.

The meeting record shows the board approved several other budget‑adjacent measures earlier in the agenda and that the agency continues community outreach on the proposed service changes, including pop‑up open houses and an online survey. SFMTA staff emphasized they would seek to maintain service frequency and connections where possible while meeting the fiscal requirement staff says is unavoidable without new revenue.

If the board or supervisors later choose to use the agency’s reserves, staff said the budget policy would require replenishment; if staff move forward with service changes, the packet will include the legally required Title VI analysis and a rollout plan with dates and communications strategies.