Is BART safe? As a BART director, I am asked this question frequently — and after this week’s fatal stabbing of an innocent rider the inquiries will keep coming. The answer depends on one’s expectations.

Safe compared to city streets? BART is a closed, pay-as-you-go system. It should be more secure than the streets it travels through. But BART, in fact, often answers the safety question by comparing its crime rate to that of the cities it serves, because crime on BART tends to mirror trends on the streets.

It shouldn’t be that way. BART has an obligation to protect the safety of riders inside its fare gates and is legally allowed to take protective measures, based on court rulings. But BART’s fare gates are notoriously porous and offer no real barrier to protect paying commuters. With fare evasion rampant, it’s no wonder there is little difference between safety on BART and safety on the streets.

BART actually has many rules already in place to protect riders. What’s lacking is the will — and staffing — to enforce them. Simply put, BART’s police department growth has not kept up with the expansion of the transit system because the agency directors, past and present, have not made police protection a priority.

In 2018, a transit police and safety expert reported to the BART Board of Directors that 94 more sworn police officers should be added to address public safety concerns. That would represent a 50 percent increase in the size of the force. In response, the board increased this year’s police budget by just 19 officers, none of whom are on patrol yet. Riders rightfully expect far more police presence at BART stations and on trains than they are getting.

Not helping matters is the fact that the political will of most of the directors is against enforcing low-level infractions and rule violations because of social equity concerns. This was demonstrated yet again by the board majority’s recent refusal to even consider preventing panhandlers from intruding on riders on station platforms and trains.

For over a year, several directors have pushed for hiring civilian “ambassadors” to keep the peace on trains while balking at hiring more police officers or cracking down on fare evasion. The former agency general manager opposed the ambassador program as inadequate because ambassadors would have no formal training, be given no drug or criminal background checks and would likely be hired from local social service agencies.

Nonetheless, urban directors continue the push to allocate $1.5 million for a pilot ambassador program and the new general manager is considering it.

If approved, the ambassadors would provide a “presence” on the train to make riders feel safer. Yet, they would have no enforcement authority and would serve no real public safety purpose. Armed only with a cell phone, they would be taught to call in if they see something that isn’t right on the train. Of course, BART’s 415,000 daily passengers can theoretically do the same thing and be just as effective.

Such toothless programs are a waste of management resources at a time when the agency’s focus should be on expanding more proven enforcement programs.

Until the majority of directors make public safety a more urgent priority by giving the general manager proper direction and financial resources, riders are going to continue to feel unsafe using the system and will look for alternative ways to travel.

It’s time to get serious about law enforcement on BART, at all levels. We don’t need alternative social justice programs to dupe riders into believing BART is providing for their safety.

Debora Allen is a BART director representing District 1, which stretches through central Contra Costa County from Martinez to San Ramon.