BART staff coordinate Oakland Airport Connector astroturf campaign

What's your beef? (0.00 / 0)

If memory serves, you've written on this general topic before.  I don't have a dog in this fight, and I've lived in places where the equivalent service went right up to the airport.  This is now things work at Washington National or at Boston Logan, and it makes it practical for people for those entire metropolitan areas to get to the airport with minimal trouble transferring.  This is a good thing.

What's your problem with that?  Why is this not a good idea?  What are your organizational affiliations?  Do you have a dog in this fight?

---

by: mbayrob @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 02:46:55 AM UTC

My "beef" is that this is an incredibly wasteful project (5.00 / 1)

Bus rapid transit would be more effective for a tenth of the cost. The current OAC plan would cost more than half a billion dollars and would force BART to take out a $150 million loan, when BART is currently considering fare hikes and service cuts. They don't have that kind of money. Further, the savings from the stimulus would go back to several transit agencies in the Bay Area, which would be extremely helpful to the struggling agency.

I'm working with several organizations, but I have no organizational affiliation in this fight and I am working as a volunteer. I'm advocating on this project because I care deeply about Bay Area transit.

---

by: Becks @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:59:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And (0.00 / 0)

How much would this rapid bus cost?  How much longer would it take?  How many busses per hour would it take to provide enough service so these busses arent dangerously overcrowded?  How much higher are the operating costs compared to the rail solution?

---

by: auron renouille @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 19:54:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Faster. Cheaper. Simpler. (0.00 / 0)

Cost: 10% of the cost of the overhead connector

Speed: Comparable or faster than the overhead connector

How many: That's for BART to figure out, but it is much more affordable and simple to add more buses than to add more trains.

Operating costs: I'm not 100% sure, but I think they're comparable or cheaper than rail. Also, the savings that would be had from not building the expensive overhead guideway could be used for operating costs, making a bus connector free.

---

by: Becks @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 21:39:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not necessarily simpler (0.00 / 0)

I lived in Boston for 3 years, and after seeing the Silver Line operate (perhaps "operate" is a compliment), you realize you have to be careful when using busses for airport connectors.  Busses bunch easily, it's difficult to board passengers with luggage quickly or comfortably, their lanes get blocked by cars dropping off, etc. etc.  That's my concern with the OAK connector.

I would look closer at the operating cost issue before saying that - usually, rail has a higher up-front investment and then lower operating costs.  Is there an EIR or cost analysis on it?

---

by: auron renouille @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:22:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm looking into operating costs (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately, BART's website sucks and it's nearly impossible to find this information. I do know that the operating cost of a rapid bus would be $3.1 million, as described in TransForm's proposal. Again, these operating costs would be fully covered by the savings from not building the overhead guideway.

Fares would be free so that would greatly decrease the loading time. Also, there would be several doors on the buses, and the buses would be low so that you could roll luggage on directly from the curb, with no steps. Bunching would be unlikely because of the queue jump lanes, signal priority, and dedicated lanes at the end of the route. This is not just another bus that we're proposing - it's so much more.

Oh, and there's no problem of cars blocking buses at the Oakland Airport - they drop off in a completely different area.

---

by: Becks @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 23:28:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yikes (0.00 / 0)

You think your response might be a little overblown?  God forbid a community activist oppose their government spending money on something they think is wasteful.  God forbid they do the investigative work to find that BART is creating documents on the sly for other people to send.

Are you really so cynical that you automatically jump to the conclusion that this is all being done for some nefarious reason by someone with a "dog in the fight"?  And don't we all have a "dog in the fight" when it's a project using our tax money?

Personally, I gotta say that I hate using AirBART.  I'll only fly out of OAK if the fare difference is substantial because SFO makes it so easy to take BART.  That being said, I don't think the Oakland connector is a good idea.  In an ideal world, the best solution would be having BART going right into OAK.  But since that's not possible, I don't see the benefit of spending so much money on a connector.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 21:00:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great Work, Becks (n.t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Aeolus @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 19:22:31 PM UTC

a huge waste of money for something that won't work (0.00 / 0)

this is going to be a huge waste of money ,and the idea people will pay 12 bugks for some stupid air connector is insane. a brt solution would have saved money.

the republicans will use this kind of waste of federal dollars when running agsint the Obama administration in 2010. this is stupid as stupid as the Central Subway in SF. Wastes of billions of dollars!

--
www.gregdewar.com

---

by: gregdewar.com @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 19:34:23 PM UTC

Not a huge waste of money (0.00 / 0)

Neither the Airport train nor the Central Subway are wastes of money, although I have my own beef with where the central subway stops will be placed. Western and Central European countries are way ahead of the game on public transportation, and to think there are people here who think busses are the way to go. seriously??? This is the 21st century. I'd like to see some innovation by now. Infrastructure is infrastructure. One you've built it, it lasts. Busses are cheap and dirty solutions. Rail infrastructure and subways are very important for a society that won't be dependant on oil.

---

by: largo @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 20:54:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Buses (0.00 / 0)

Buses are cheap, but don't have to be dirty.  In SF, for example, most buses run on the same electricity that powers BART and would power the airport train.

I agree with you that, in some cases, rail is preferable to buses.  But since both can easily run on electricity, for short distance segments, it is not an issue of pollution or oil dependency.  It's more an issue about traffic control, costs, and disruption.  Long distance segments are a wholenother ball of wax and I think, on balance, rail is a much better alternative for that.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 21:12:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Buses can be very pretty (0.00 / 0)

Like the ones they use for the Eindhoven airport connector:

 

---

by: Becks @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 21:36:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks pretty enough (0.00 / 0)

Yes, but is that the kind of bus that's proposed?  Or are they just going to be running normal city busses, with low accessibility and no luggage storage?

---

by: auron renouille @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:30:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now (0.00 / 0)

I think the buses they use now are fine.  They have plenty of room for luggage and are plenty accessible.  They're not bad looking either.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:59:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to take us off-topic... (0.00 / 0)

Well, kind of off-topic.  But.

Are they low floor, or do they require a lift?  I have, thus far, avoided OAK because after my experience using a wheelchair in Boston, I don't trust airport contractors (typically paid much less than public transit agency drivers) to know how to work lifts, etc.  Low-floor busses are borderline idiot-proof.  It's hard to argue with the setup at SFO because there's no driver to stop you from getting on the AirTrain or BART.

---

by: auron renouille @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 00:20:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The current AirBART buses are not low floor (0.00 / 0)

That's probably the worst part of the current buses. If you're concerned though, you can take the 50 AC Transit line directly from Coliseum BART to the airport. Some of the buses are low floor, but even if they're not, the drivers are well trained. Also, the ACT bus is cheaper and often quicker because AirBART takes forever to load (mostly because passengers are fumbling for change).

---

by: Becks @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 00:41:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hrm, that's good to know then. (0.00 / 0)

I can't speak for AC Transit yet, but I've been remarkably impressed with Muni drivers (almost all high-floor busses to my experience, they may have low-floor but I haven't been on them yet) and their ability and willingness to operate the lifts, so I may just do the AC transit thing and skip AirBART.

If accessibility were made a high priority in a BRT alternative and it really is that much cheaper than the rail option, I guess it's something I could support, but the problem with BRT for me is that usually accessibility gets the shaft in the name of cost reduction.

I believe you said at one point that the BRT option provided an intermediate stop - why is that a good thing, when the goal is to bring people from the BART station to OAK?  What's the intermediate stop?

---

by: auron renouille @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 18:35:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For transit advocates there are two goals (0.00 / 0)

1. Bring people from BART to the airport (and back).
2. Help spur economic development on Hegenberger and serve East Oakland residents and airport area workers with the connector.

There would just be one intermediate stop, only adding a minute to the trip. It would be located near hotels, which would be useful for airport travelers as well. Just as importantly, it would serve people who work at the many businesses surrounding the airport.

---

by: Becks @ Sun May 17, 2009 at 00:18:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No specific buses have been proposed (0.00 / 0)

Because BART staff refuses to do a real study into this option. But with the money that would be saved from not building the overhead guideway, they could buy buy buses like this.

---

by: Becks @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 23:11:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By the way (0.00 / 0)

I'm not trying to ask a rhetorical question - I know next to nothing about this project, but as Robert said, am inherently suspicious of replacing rail with bus service on high-traffic corridors.  Especially one like this, where you don't run a risk of the train later becoming irrelevant - that airport isn't exactly going anywhere anytime soon.

---

by: auron renouille @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:31:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem is (0.00 / 0)

The Bush Administration spent 8 years using BRT to undermine passenger rail, even rigging the process of analyzing and studying mass transit solutions against LRT and for BRT. So as a result mass transit advocates are quite rightly suspicious of every instance where someone proposes substituting BRT for an LRT project.

Unfortunately, that makes it somewhat difficult to assess the matter fairly. There are some instances where BRT really does make more sense than LRT. I'm not convinced there are very many of them, but Becks has done a damn good job of showing that in this case, BRT really is a better solution.

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

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:23:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

SF (0.00 / 0)

I think SF could be another case.  The congestion of the city and the hills make it far too difficult and expensive to expand the subway system much.  I think a better solution is to designate certain streets as bus, bike, and pedestrian only.  It's cheap since we already have the buses and its easily scalable since you can try it out on one or two streets and see how it works.  Would it really kill anyone if California Street was designated bus, bike, and ped only?

---

by: Be_Devine @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 23:06:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you're interested in alternatives, check out TransForm's report (0.00 / 0)

Advocates, including myself, are not advocating for no airport connector. We're advocating for a rapid bus, using queue jump lanes, signal priorities, and dedicated lanes. This alternative could be built for about 10% of the cost of the overhead airport connector.

TransForm, an Oakland based transportation advocacy group, created an excellent proposal in just two weeks for this rapid bus project. Please read the full report or my summary for more information.

Unfortunately, after four hours of public testimony, BART directors voted 7-1 to approve this wasteful project. Director Tom Radulovich casting the dissenting vote, calling the Oakland Airport Connector municipal bling or blingfrastructure. Fortunately, there are going to be many more opportunities to stop this from moving forward.

Also, I spoke at the BART meeting and presented the research from this blog post. The BART directors seemed shocked and people in the room gasped. The board directed the general manager to look into my allegations (we'll see if that happens).

---

by: Becks @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 21:34:00 PM UTC