[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

Don Perata on Oakland Airport Connector: "Too much money for too little transit"

by: Becks

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 08:36:10 AM PDT


( - promoted by Brian Leubitz)

(Cross posted at Living in the O.)

Last week, Don Perata joined the effort to stop the wasteful overhead Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) by sending a hard-hitting letter to Metropolitian Transportation Commissioner and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. On July 8, the MTC will be voting on providing even more funding to the OAC from Regional Measure 2 funds, and Perata is not pleased about this:

As the author of SB 916 – which placed regional Measure 2 on the ballot-, I must oppose the Oakland Airport Connector project. In short, the proposal is too much money for too little transit and economic value.

While the connector was included in the menu of RM2 transportation projects, that election was in 2004. The world has since changed dramatically. And so has the project. In 2003 when the project was proposed, only $30M was needed to complete funding for the $230M connector. In fact, we told the voters (in the ballot pamphlet) that this was "the final portion of funds needed for direct BART service" to the airport. Project costs have now increased by over $300M and the RM2 dollars needed have quadrupled. Even more damning, the ridership predicted in 2003 has fallen substantially from 13,540 to fewer than 4500 by 2020. This fails any cost-benefit analysis on its face.

Advocates have been making these arguments for months, to the MTC, BART, and the Port Commision, and most of our pleas for reason have fallen on deaf ears. But I'm hopeful that these elected officials will find it more difficult to ignore the former State Senate Democratic leader and the likely future mayor of Oakland.

Becks :: Don Perata on Oakland Airport Connector: "Too much money for too little transit"

Perata continues:

Elected representatives everywhere act as consistent with today's realities; we cannot conduct public affairs as if the weak economy is simply a market correction. There is less tax dollars available and more competition than our generation has ever known. This requires strong fiscal discipline and hard choices. Whether the money comes from taxes, tolls or fees, it's the same pair of pants, only different pockets!

I am unconvinced an Oakland Airport Connector is the highest and best use of available transit money – even assuming potential millions from the federal government stimulus program. Washington bureaucrats don't know any better; we should.

In the coming weeks, the Port Commission, MTC, the Oakland City Council, and ultimately BART will all have opportunities to prove that they do know better.

Today, the full Port Commission will vote on taking the first step on funding the OAC to the tune of $44 million. (Two weeks ago, the Aviation Committee of the Port Commission voted to move move the OAC funding issue onto the full committee, and then for some reason the full commission delayed the hearing.) Just as BART has gone back to MTC again and again for increasingly larger amounts of RM2 funding, they have asked the Port for more and more. The Port has the opportunity to leverage its contribution to require BART to study a rapid bus alternative that would save hundreds of million of dollars.

Then, on Thursday, the Rules Committee of the Oakland City Council will vote on a request from Councilmember Nancy Nadel to bring the OAC project before the Public Works Committee and ultimately the full Council. There are a multitude of reasons that the City Council should review the project again, as dto510 explains:

A lot is at stake for Oakland. On one hand, project supporters claim that it will improve the Oakland Airport area, attracting more airline passengers and perhaps more businesses to Airport and surrounding area. For the reality-based community, however, there are enormous costs to the City of Oakland to moving ahead with the project. ACTIA funds that would otherwise go to East Oakland bike/ped/transit improvements, such as a mooted transit village at the Coliseum BART station, would be lost. The Port of Oakland will have to use funds that would otherwise go to airport renovation and expansion. Regional stimulus funds would go to this instead of to shoring up AC Transit and BART service. And the City of Oakland will lose the opportunity to improve transit service that would serve the workers and businesses in the Hegenberger Corridor, since the RFP for the Airport Connector does not include any intermediate stops. Many of these problems are a result of changes to the project, and many former supporters are now opponents.

Unfortunately, it is possible that OAC proponent and Oakland Councilmember Larry Reid will urge the Rules Committee not to agendize this item because he fears that when the City Council finds out how drastically this project has changed, they will no longer support it. So if you're an Oakland resident, please contact Rules Committee members to ask them to support a public Council hearing on the OAC:

Council President Jane Brunner, District 1
JBrunner@oaklandnet.com or 510-238-7001

Jean Quan, District 4
JQuan@oaklandnet.com or 510-238-7004

Ignacio De La Fuente, District 5
IDeLaFuente@oaklandnet.com or 510-238-7005

A half billion dollars, affordable access to the Oakland Airport, and so much more are at stake in the OAC project. In the coming weeks, let's hope that our elected officials show as much leadership and reasoned skepticism as Don Perata and save our region from this boondoggle.

Previous posts on the Oakland Airport Connector:

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Dude, what's your problem? (0.00 / 0)
When is the 21st century going to finally arrive? Never, according to you and Perata. We need to get as much rail infraustructure as possible, because infrastructure does not leave once it is in place. Airport rail connectors--not bus--are essential. Why the hell does South America have better infrastructure than us?! Let's do this already. I'm sick of all the whining. Yes, these things cost money. But with infrastructure, you can always be reassured it will stay there. Compare that to bus transit which breaks down and requires significant money continuously poured into it. Besides, you probably don't get that most of the suburban east bay residents don't want to take a bus. They would be happy taking a rail connector but anything that looks like a bus scares them because deep down in their inner core, they think to themselves--oh no... another ghetto ride. They see rail and think--wow. the future. I think I could give up my car. bam.

Suburban East Bay residents currently take the bus (0.00 / 0)
It's called the AirBART, and it has nearly as much ridership as the projected ridership for the half billion dollar OAC. I'm not anti-train, but I'm not going to pay $6 each way for a connector to the airport (on top of my BART fare AND my bus fare to get to BART).

Besides, it's unclear if the OAC is even going to be a rail project. The RFP allows the possibility of buses being operated on the overhead guideway.


[ Parent ]
Rail vs a Bus (0.00 / 0)
I was all for this project SIX years ago when it was supposed to cost a third of what it's projected to cost now and wouldn't come at the additional cost of gutting other needed projects - but I've definitely changed my mind since.

This is another poorly designed waste of transit dollars like the SFO airport connector.  I have no confidence that BART can get these things right.  How many times have they changed the train routing at SFO?  Probably the most unconsciously damming statement to come from BART was regarding the recent fare hike for SFO riders when they said that it only impacted "less than 3% BART riders."  That line cost $1.5B and serves maybe 5% of total BART riders and has a terrible connection with Caltrain that will get worse in September once they drop direct service to Millbrae and virtually NO service for South Bay Caltrain riders trying to get to SFO.

Generally I'm in favor of rail over buses, but if BART has half a billion dollars to throw around I can think of 10 or twelve better projects than the OAC just off the top of my head.  I'm sure a BART station on the Fremont line at the San Antonio neighborhood in Oakland would generate much more ridership. Or how about light rail on Broadway or Telegraph, or even a loop around Lake Merritt - not to mention Geary or Van Ness!  How the Bay Area wastes track mileage on suburban places like VTA rail lines and refuses to build where people are already using transit I'll never know.  The 38 Geary has 58 thousand riders a day!  The 51 Broadway almost 30 thousand, and we're going to waste half a billion to get 4500 people to the airport slightly faster.


[ Parent ]
Rail Leaving Once in Place (0.00 / 0)
"We need to get as much rail infraustructure as possible, because infrastructure does not leave once it is in place."

This statement is simply not true on its face.  The Bay Area (and Los Angeles) had thousands of miles of rail track in place prior to the 1950's, much of it with separate right of ways such as the lower deck of the Bay Bridge, and except for the 5 lines that went through the Twin Peaks tunnel ALL of that was ripped up.


[ Parent ]
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