Well, that didn’t take long.

Less than three months after voters passed a $3.5 billion BART bond for capital projects, transit officials presented budget forecasts in which the district reneges on its part of the deal.

This is exactly what we predicted would happen: Bond money from Measure RR would go into the pot of capital project funds. But fare increase money would then be pulled out of that pot starting in fiscal year 2023 and redirected to cover the district’s excessive salary and benefit costs.

Related Articles Editorial: End BART deceit of voters about $3.5 billion bond deal Thus, bond revenues, which property owners must repay through higher taxes, would indirectly finance the cost of salaries and benefits rather than needed and promised capital projects.

This shell game isn’t a done deal, yet. BART directors haven’t formally voted to redirect the fare increase money. But only one director, Debora Allen of Clayton, objected when the latest 10-year budget forecast was presented at a board workshop late last month.

BART officials refused this week to answer questions about the details of the budget forecast.

Prior to the election, our analysis showed that as much as $1.2 billion from fare increases and other sources could be redirected from capital expenditures to operations. Of that, $491 million was from fare increases starting in 2023.

Here’s how that fits into the big picture: Last year, in the run-up to the election, BART claimed it needed $9.6 billion for capital projects. It promised it had already lined up $4.8 billion and wanted voters to provide the other half through the bond measure and local transit sales taxes.

For its share, the district’s calculations included the future fare increase money for the next 10 years. Under the new forecast, the district disregards that promise, leaving an additional shortfall.

The inflation-based fare increases, staggered every two years, were approved in 2013 with the promise that the new revenue would go toward capital needs.

The increases end in 2022. The new 10-year financial forecast assumes the board will renew the biennial increases. But, in a major change from last year before the election, the forecast no longer assumes the money will be committed for capital needs.

While BART officials during the election campaign insisted that they would never directly spend bond money on labor costs, they preserved the option of redirecting other funds after the bonds were floated.

But they never leveled with voters about it. They also deceived voters about the amount property taxes would increase to pay off the bonds.

The reason for this bait and switch is that the district has locked itself into costly labor expenses and work rules and, even in a strong economy, can’t afford to fund them.

Last month, the 10-year forecast, even with the fare increase money, showed a $185 million operating shortfall. That deficit is expected to increase substantially as district officials revise the numbers this month to reflect rapidly rising pension costs and newly revealed declining ridership numbers.

Injecting a dose of reality at last month’s meeting, Director Nick Josefowitz of San Francisco warned of “long-term structural deficits” that the district must address.

He and Director Robert Raburn of Oakland went so far as to suggest the district look at a pilot project using automated trains without human operators. It’s an interesting idea, but sure to raise the ire of labor unions if it progresses beyond the talking stage.

As for the near term, Carter Mau, BART’s budget chief, told the board last month that the district would likely finish the current fiscal year with an $18 million deficit and next fiscal year with a $25 million-$45 million shortfall.

Rather than rein in its labor costs, the district continues to look for new sources of money. Most notably, BART is seeking more than $1.7 billion from a Bay Area bridge toll hike that is under consideration for a 2018 ballot.

Meanwhile, it’s never been clear exactly how much the district needs for capital expenditures. Officials have yet to put together a long-term spending plan for the bond money voters already approved.

Like with their budget forecasting, they just seem to make up the rules as they go along.