BART's brilliant plan for financing the Oakland Airport Connector

BRT without extra stops (0.00 / 0)

I'd like BRT (don't mind the current situation, too much). And low floors would be nice. But I'd prefer a straight shot to the airport.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 16:17:45 PM UTC

That would be possible (0.00 / 0)

They could easily run some buses straight to the airport and back, and others could make a couple of local stops along the way. I generally take the AC Transit bus from BART to the airport. Even though we stop a couple places along the way, it's usually just as fast or faster than the Air BART bus, which is a straight shot.

What takes time is the passenger loading through one door and the traffic that buses sometimes get stuck in. Both of these problems would be fixed with BRT.

---

by: Becks @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 17:04:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A couple thoughts (0.00 / 0)

I have no strong opinions about the Oakland Airport Connector, and have written elsewhere of my own skepticism of that project.

But I am concerned about some of the thinking behind this. First, is it right to sacrifice long-term infrastructure investment to help cover short-term operating expenses? To support redirection of BART to OAK funds to operating expenses I'd need to have some assurance that the project will be funded at some time in the near future, and that there will be a long-term solution to the issue of funding local mass transit.

OC Progressive has shown why sales taxes aren't a reliable source for funding government, and many local transit agencies are indeed funded by sales taxes. I believe the solution is a regional gas tax that SF Bay Area voters can approve for themselves without having to worry about conservative votes in the Central Valley or Orange County.

Second, is Bus Rapid Transit really a better alternative here? As far as I can tell BRT along this corridor and the BART to OAK connector are two totally separate kinds of projects. Eliminating the connector means you sacrifice some kind of riders to serve a very different population. And perhaps that's the right thing to do, it wouldn't take much to convince me of this.

I tend to instinctively react against the idea that BRT is an acceptable substitute for a true passenger rail system. The up-front costs may be cheaper, but ridership is usually lower and the long-term costs are often higher. Less bang for more bucks.

But, as I said, it may be the case that an Airport Connector isn't the best use of money on this corridor, and that BRT would actually serve more people, not less, than the connector.

In that case I think the argument here should be that BART to OAK isn't a worthwhile project at all, and shouldn't be funded, period. I don't think it's helpful to pit good long-term infrastructure against good short-term operating costs. We must find ways to refuse to play that game.

As an aside, I'm not convinced BART's ridership projections are always wildly off - that seems to have been true of the SFO extension, but the Dublin/Pleasanton extension seems to have been a success, so much so that they're building a second station out there at West Dublin.

In any case, I'm hesitant to use ridership as an argument against mass transit - we need to be building for the long-term and if that means we don't reach ridership projections immediately, that's OK - it may take several years to reach the projected number, but it is usually reached and then exceeded.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 17:07:26 PM UTC

Agreed that ridership should not be the main argument here (5.00 / 1)

And it's not for me. I mainly brought up ridership because BART staff brought it up in their report to the board, and I think they're wrong.

I see little benefit from the OAC as it is currently planned. The last time I took the bus from BART to the airport, it took 12 minutes! And the OAC is projected to take 10 minutes. Is two minutes worth hundreds of millions of dollars? I think not.

But the problem is that it doesn't always take 12 minutes - I've heard horror stories of the bus taking 2 hours because of terrible traffic. A dedicated bus lane would solve this problem.

AirBART and the AC Transit bus already have very high ridership from BART to the airport - this ridership would only increase when BRT was implemented. Sure, a few people who might have taken a train wouldn't take BRT, but I don't think it would be a substantial amount, especially if we build nice stations and do good marketing and outreach.

And as an added bonus, BRT could be expanded further into the community. People who work at the airport could get there much more easily. People like me who don't live near a BART station could take the bus (or later BRT) straight to this airport BRT line.

I understand that your preference in general is rail, but in this case, BRT makes so much more sense. Please tell me, what would be sacrificed by building BRT instead of rail? I can't think of anything.

---

by: Becks @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 17:35:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those are solid points (0.00 / 0)

And what it says to me is that in this case it's the project that's the problem - the rail connector is not the best use of the money for upgrading that corridor.

I've never had the 2 hour problem on AirBART, but then the last time I used it was 8 or 9 years ago! A dedicated bus lane does sound like a better solution, especially since it could be extended into the East Oakland community, which could use it.

Good posts, and good luck!

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 18:16:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Time to put all these ideas on hold (0.00 / 0)

California would be far better served by a backfill of the decreasing quarter cent sales tax that subsidizes local transit than any new project.

Why would we want to fund new "gorgeous buses with low floors and attractive stations" when we are decimating our existing bus routes?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a zealous supporter of expanding non-auto options at every level, walking, biking, local, regional and long-distance, and understand the importance of things like car-share and advanced transit options. A year ago I was a strong supporter of advanced transit systems.

Right now, save the existing buses!

OC Progressive is Gus Ayer, former Fountain Valley Council member.  

---

by: OC Progressive @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 20:30:12 PM UTC

Some of the funds can't be used for operating costs (0.00 / 0)

There's really no option here to do nothing and revert all the funds because most of the funds aren't available for operating costs. For example, the Port of Oakland is not going to fork over its $44 million contribution to be used for operating costs.

So we should those dedicated infrastructure funds for a cheaper BRT system and revert all funds that could be used for operating costs back to local transit agencies.

And I completely agree about the need to focus on funding operations. AC Transit service is about to be drastically cut because of their budget crisis. I depend on AC Transit to get around so this is going to have a huge impact on my life and other riders.

---

by: Becks @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 20:57:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In this case (0.00 / 0)

I think you're right about this, given the weak case for using rail on this particular corridor.

Or, we could just use a streetcar - follow the Portland model!

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 21:18:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The concern I have (0.00 / 0)

Is that if we let operating expenses get pit against long-term infrastructure, then we're going to have a hell of a time getting out of this recession.

The moment we start seeing real economic growth, gas prices will likely rise again. That could strangle a recovery in its infancy.

Building transit infrastructure is a good way to provide near-term economic stimulus and long-term infrastructure stability. Electrified trains help reorient our economic development patterns and provide insulation against an oil shock.

So I try to resist the notion that we have to sacrifice infrastructure for operating expenses. Of course, we do need to find a way to fill the holes in the local transit agency budgets, because that too plays a key role in economic recovery.

My own view is a regional gas tax is the answer - it'll bring in enough money to fill the operating budget holes, and as the economy eventually recovers and gas sales rise, it'll help fund expansions of both operations and infrastructure.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 21:17:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regional gas tax (0.00 / 0)

Is a great idea!

How's it going to be passed by voters after the AAA, trucking companies, organized labor, chambers of commerce, and every other interest group comes out against it?

When sales taxes have been passed, they have been carefully constructed to give something to everyone, and forestall any organized opposition.

OC Progressive is Gus Ayer, former Fountain Valley Council member.  

---

by: OC Progressive @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 21:39:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Bay Area would pass it (0.00 / 0)

AAA, trucking companies and CofC will be ignored by Bay Area voters. Organized labor would probably back it.

Southern California is a different story, sadly. But if we're looking at this from a Bay Area perspective, a regional gas tax should be a slam-dunk winner.

I've heard that the MTC may actually already have the authority to put this on the ballot.  

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 23:19:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is an excellent idea (0.00 / 0)

The MTC may have the authority, but do they have the will? If not, is there another way to get this on the ballot?

I have very little faith in the MTC, especially because they are not representative of the large population areas of the Bay Area. The far flung suburbs have disproportionate representation so it's hard to get progressive transportation decisions made by this body.

---

by: Becks @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 23:25:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a nationwide problem, sadly (0.00 / 0)

Seattle, Philadelphia, etc - they've all had to deal with the same problem. Suburbs have disproportionate representation and so the urban cores are left to wither on the vine. That absolutely has to change, and MTC would be a good place to start.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 23:30:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good news! (0.00 / 0)

The BART Board voted to hold off on voting on the loan until the next meeting, in two weeks. I'll have a full post up tonight or tomorrow morning about the meeting.

---

by: Becks @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 21:02:49 PM UTC