[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Oakland Airport Connector now in the hands of the Port Commission

by: Becks

Fri May 29, 2009 at 15:05:17 PM PDT


( - promoted by Brian Leubitz)

(Cross posted at Living in the O.)

UPDATE: There's an excellent column about this issue in Saturday's Contra Costa Times.

A couple weeks ago, the BART board made a terrible decision by approving the wasteful overhead Oakland Airport Connector (OAC). As dto510 wrote, quoting Director Radulovich, they mortgaged the system for “blingfrastructure.” But the OAC is still not a done deal because several sources of funding need to fall into place for the project to be fully funded.

The next stop for the OAC is the Oakland Port Commission Aviation Committee meeting this Monday, June 1st. The committee will vote on taking the first step on funding the OAC to the tune of $44 million. In the grand scheme of this half billion dollar project, $44 million might not sound like that much, but let’s look at this amount in context.

When the OAC project was first proposed, it was touted as a $130 million project. I couldn’t find out how much BART had hoped the Port would commit at the time (if anything), but it was clearly less than $44 million. Colleagues who have been involved in this process longer than I have told me that as the price tag of the OAC rose, BART kept going back to the Port, asking them for more and more money. The Port Director kept saying yes, but the Commission never actually voted on the $44 million, and I guess BART just assumed they’d come through in the end.

The Port Commission should emphatically vote no on this funding. A lot has changed in the past few years. Traffic is down both at the airport and at the port, which means that the Port is in a much worse financial position today. To pay this $44 million to BART, the Port will have to borrow the money, and with interest, the total cost to the Port will be $70 million. Ultimately, this $70 million will come from the $4.50 per passenger fee that they currently charge to airport travelers.

 

Becks :: Oakland Airport Connector now in the hands of the Port Commission

This might sound reasonable, except that the Port has other projects for which it needs funds from those passenger fees. One major project is the renovation of Terminal 1, which right now is set for a five year renovation schedule. Shifting the $70 million to the OAC would push this back to a seven year schedule. The Terminal 2 (Southwest) renovation project has been a huge success, and there’s no reason we should have to wait 7 years before Terminal 1 looks like this:

Terminal 2

Besides the economic reasons for rejecting this project, the Port commissioners should look at how the project has dramatically changed. The Port has a fact sheet up on its website from 2002 about the OAC, which has these fun facts:

  • The Connector will be a seamless connection between BART and the Airport. What that means is that the Connector is part of the BART system, so riders don’t have to pay a separate fare when transferring between BART and the Connector.
  • Riders will save a considerable amount of time over the current bus connector between BART and the airport, especially when there are major events at the Coliseum complex and during peak travel periods at the Airport…
  • A design/build contract for the Connector is scheduled for award in 2004 and the system should begin operation in 2008.

These facts were true in 2002, but they’re no longer true. The connection won’t be seamless and will cost an additional $6 fare, paid separately from the BART fare. At its best projections, riders would save a few minutes with the OAC, and when factoring in the long walks, it could even take longer than the current bus. And I think it’s pretty clear why the last fact isn’t true.

The Port Commission should vote no on funding the OAC and should recommend that BART do a serious study into a rapid bus option, like the one TransForm proposed. The Oakland Airport could benefit from an improved BART connection, but the OAC is not the right choice.

Here is the info for the Port Commission meeting, if you’d like to attend and speak:

What: Port Commission Meeting on the Oakland Airport Connector

When: Monday, June 1st @ 3:30pm

Where: 530 Water Street in Oakland (accessible by the 72, 72M, or 72R buses)

If you cannot make it to the meeting, but want to tell the Port Commissioners to vote against OAC funding, please send an email via TransForm’s action page. You can find a pre-written message there, but I encourage you to take the time to personalize the email, as non-form letters are always more effective.

Previous posts on the Oakland Airport Connector:

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

BART has track record of wasting $$ (0.00 / 0)
BART to SFO airport cost/effectiveness number were fudged--to show ridership and revenue much higher that planners actually expected. I was told by planner this in early 1990's.

The Extension opened, and surprise, Big Deficit. So SamTrans raised bus fare for poor to keep the line operating....even after closing some little used station on weekend.

This has been history of just about every BART extension: cost overrun, overstated ridership & revenue forecast. And other more cost-effective transit-solutions ignored.

Wait for BART to San Jose implosion if it every gets built...

 


I don't mean to ask a stupid question (4.00 / 1)
And I know numbers are numbers, but every time I've been on BART from SFO to the Financial District, it's been an unpleasant sort of sardines-in-a-can packed, a la the Lex in NYC.  Were their ridership numbers in violation of the laws of physics or something?  By the anecdotal standard (knowing that the plural of anecdote ain't data) it sure seems like it has adequate ridership, but it may have adequate ridership that doesn't meet stratospheric ridership projections.

[ Parent ]
That's not a stupid question (4.00 / 1)

When creating ridership predictions, BART staff doesn't seem to consider reality. Like with BART to San Jose, if ridership met their projections, that amount of people would not fit through the transbay tube. Ridership from the entire extension (SFO, Millbrae, etc.) was projected to be 68,600 by 2010, but in 2008 ridership had only reached 28,542. So you can see, not very realistic at all. You can read a great post on this topic at Transbay Blog.

But realistic constraints don't seem to concern BART staff so they keep proposing these extensions that make no sense. And these extensions are the reason that fares are about to go way up and service has gone down.



[ Parent ]
this is sad (0.00 / 0)
once again BART chooses a stupid idea vs . doing something productive, like building a Geary tunnel that would add way more riders.

given that bart makes most of its money from fares and sales taxes, you'd think they'd do that instead of sucking off the 'burbs!

--
www.gregdewar.com


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox