The BART board apparently decided that a "train" that will require switching of cables halfway through the line, is an excellent use of nearly half a billion dollars.
I would describe my indignant response, but TransForm, a transit advocacy has done it pretty well for me in a press release today:
In a historic vote today, the BART Board voted to approved a huge boondoggle called the Oakland Airport Connector that will likely be the most expensive project per new passenger built in the Bay Area.
Oddly, BART is announcing the creation of a "swift" project. The Connector will travel at an average speed of just over 23 mph. Which is swift for some cyclists, some dogs and the rare Olympic sprinter, but not for a "automated fixed guideway" system, actually a slow cable car.
The project will:
* Cost $492 million dollars just to add 600 riders (if you believe their outdated ridership projections). General Manager Dugger confirmed that BART is assuming 4,350 riders in 2020, not the 10K that BART has presented recently. That is just 600 more than they would have had with AirBART service. Wow, 600 riders for nearly half a billion dollars.
* Have vehicles stop for 10-20 seconds in the middle of the journey while vehicles switch ropes and restart (not even the cable cars in SF stop to switch cables! Think of the last time you were on a rail vehicle that stopped halfway through the trip for no apparent reason!) I guess that's what happens when you take the lowest bidder and they are a ski lift operator.
It was confirmed at the meeting that this very short connector has a projected fare of $6 each way on top of your BART ticket, despite BART's insistence that this was not necessarily the case. Transit advocates throughout the region are enjoying BART's "swift" decision. (TransForm)
This is a ridiculous waste of money. That money could be spent in any number of more intelligent ways: improving service, expanding service outwards, whatever, you name it. But $492 million for a few miles that is already well served by AirBART?
It was 5:30 AM. I was at the Concord BART station. With me were two friends sporting
"Garamendi for Congress" shirts. Also with me was the Lieutenant Governor of California, John Garamendi. How did I get here?!?
I've always been active in politics, even though I'm only a freshman high school student. For me, this campaign started in June. My friend, Jeremy Wolff, invited me to volunteer with the Garamendi for Congress campaign, where he was working. I was already more-than-familiar with the congressional race and John Garamendi. Unable to refuse anything related to politics, I accepted without hesitating, and on the same day, met John for the first time at the Campaign Headquarters.
Since then, I've been volunteering regularly, phone banking every other day, and canvassing on weekends. I've spent a good deal of my summer with this campaign. Not only am I a campaign enthusiast, I am also a blogger, and am the editor-in-chief of The Alternative DC, a national bipartisan youth political blog. It was under this position that I agreed to interview John for the blog at the crack of dawn.
As we mentioned last week, the possible BART strike always had a way out. And yesterday, the good folks at the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555 and the BART Board reached a deal that seems more likely to win approval from 1555's members.
The two sides announced the deal less than six hours before train operators and station agents had planned to walk out and shut down the regional commuter rail system.
These are tough times for all involved, so it's not surprising that the unions took a hit in this contract. They had to give up over $100 million in labor costs. However, there must be balance between labor costs, management costs, and ensuring quality service on the trains. You can't just look at one leg of that stool. BART had been using some less than friendly labor tactics during this dispute, and as Gavin Newsom pointed out, the rhetoric did get a smidge heated.
On a somewhat related note, why is everybody running to BART Board Vice-Chairman James Fang for quotes on this? As Greg Dewar pointed out, James Fang is a Republican from San Francisco who uses lies and half-truths to get re-elected. (It's a non-partisan position.) In a district that is overwhelmingly progressive, Fang has somehow managed to win re-election. And, toss in the fact that he managed to both delay the implementation of the TransLink Card on BART and waste money on a test of a cell phone payment system, this dude really, really needs to go. There will be another strong challenge in 2010, and hopefully, this time San Francisco's highest ranking Republican (kind of funny, huh?) will be tossed out of office and quit wasting BART's money.
If you live in the Bay Area, get ready for some traffic headaches. BART is speeding into the station, but the train might stay there for a while:
BART train operators and station agents vowed to strike after regular service ends at midnight Sunday, which effectively would shut down the regional rail agency and force hundreds of thousands of Bay Area commuters to find alternate ways to travel Monday morning.
The decision by union leadership came after the BART Board of Directors voted unanimously Thursday to unilaterally impose a one-year contract on workers represented by Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555.
"At this point we have no choice but to initiate a work action," said Jesse Hunt, president of the union local that represents about 900 of BART's 3,200 workers.(SF Chronicle 8/14/09)
There was a settlement a week ago, but the contract was defeated by 1555's members. The union leadership itself wasn't particularly thrilled with the contract, which kind of makes it difficult to sell it your membership. The big hangup appears to be the length of the contract, four years. The workers understand that they are going to take a hit this year, but they don't particularly appreciate the fact that they have to take it for such a long period of time before they have the offer to renegotiate.
However, 1555 is open to further negotiations, and there are rumors that something could be sorted out over the weekend. With luck, we'll avoid any long-term BART closure and a fair contract deal can be reached. A strike would toss the entire Bay Area into a fair bit of chaos.
Disclosure: I am working on a part time, short term basis for TransForm on the Oakland Airport Connector campaign. However, the thoughts expressed in my posts on this subject are my own and should not be construed to be those of TransForm.
The fight to stop the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) has not been easy, and as you can see from the list of posts at the bottom of this post, it has been a long one. But it’s not over yet. The Oakland Public Works Committee will be voting on the project on Tuesday, September 15th, and the issue will likely go to full Council after that. BART will also be voting on the project again in the coming months.
We’ve showed up at every meeting, generated hundreds of emails and phone calls, and expressed our concerns about the project to the press. But now it’s time for something much simpler. We’ve set up a petition asking BART, the Oakland City Council and the region’s transportation funding agencies to review the significant changes that have occurred in this project immediately and to halt movement forward until alternatives are studied.
Until September, this petition is the best way to voice our concern about the OAC so please do the following:
After a ton of negotiations, BART and their two largest unions agreed to a deal last Friday.
A 27-hour bargaining session finally led to a tentative contract between BART and three of its five unions Friday, ending nearly four months of negotiations and the threat of a commute-crippling strike.
Three of BART's unions tentatively settled on four-year contracts that will save the transit district $100 million over the life of the contracts. BART officials had demanded that amount of savings to help relieve a projected $310 million deficit.
Representatives from BART and the unions declined to reveal details, saying they wanted to present them to their members first. But they include changes in work rules and caps on benefits, among other concessions. Union officials said the proposals would "keep the trains running" without any layoffs or pay cuts. (SF Chronicle 8/1/09)
However, the unions will still need to ratify these deals, but from indications from union leaders, that will happen. That being said, BART still faces huge problems. In June, ridership was down a whopping 9 percent in June, year over year. This shouldn't surprise all that many people, as the recession has trimmed the number of commuters. Yet in terms of BART's bottom line, it is huge. It could take $27 Million out of their annual $642 million operating budget.
Fare increases have taken effect, but that isn't sufficient to stem the tide of red ink. And then of course, the lower costs of parking these days in some garages combined with those higher BART fares might encourage some to drive to work. This, to put it mildly, would be bad.
So yes, the $100 million of concessions from the unions was important for BART's continued health. But, there is a lot of work left to do to reduce costs, or we'll see more fare hikes in the future.
Disclosure: I was recently hired to work part time on a short term basis for TransForm on the Oakland Airport Connector campaign. However, the thoughts expressed in my posts on this subject are my own and should not be construed to be those of TransForm.
On Tuesday morning, the Oakland City Council, via the Public Works Committee finally had a chance to review the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC). The last time they had reviewed the project was in 2006, and it has changed greatly since then, with projected ridership plummeting and costs growing. And the Public Works Committee members seemed to understand this well, asking pointed questions of BART and agendizing the project as an action item for their first meeting in September, when they return from recess.
Before the committee deliberated, BART and TransForm gave 10 minute presentations. BART’s presentation was the same one they’ve been giving for weeks – I think I’ve seen it three times now. I don’t have a copy of the Powerpoint slides, but here are the key points in it:
The first page has renderings of the OAC stations that are entirely inaccurate now. The airport station shows a covered walkway directly from the station to the terminal, even though this was taken out of the project due to costs long ago.
On ridership, BART concedes that its financial model shows that there will only be 4,350 riders in 2020 but explains that this is a very conservative model and makes the arguments that its 13,000 ridership projection from the EIR is still valid (I’ll get to why that’s wrong later)
BART explains away eliminating the two intermediate stops, essentially blaming it on Oakland for building a Walmart at one of the proposed stops and then saying that one day in the future the other stop “could” be built. (Yeah, because BART is so good about building infill stations.)
John Knox White from TransForm followed with a new presentation, which mostly focused on ridership. You can read the entire presentation, but the short version is that while the 2002 EIR projects 10,200 new riders per day, a lot has changed since then. The fare has increased from $2 to $6, AirBART ridership has increased much more than expected, and the intermediate stops have been taken out. The reality is that BART’s own numbers show that there are only projected to be 440 new riders per day. Yes, you read that right, half a billion dollars for 440 new riders per day! In contrast, a rapid bus would cost an estimated $60 million and bring in 700 new riders per day. You should check out the full presentation for all the images and numbers, but this one alone is quite telling:
Last night, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1555, unanimously rejected BART's contract offer.
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1555, is the second-largest union at BART, with about 900 members. Members voted throughout the day on whether to accept or turn down the proposal, which includes a three-year wage freeze, a small raise in the fourth year, reductions in health and pension benefits and changes to work rules.
The decision on whether to strike will not be made until BART's largest union, Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, which accounts for about half of BART's 2,800 unionized workers, votes on management's offer Thursday.
"Negotiations are about meeting the other side halfway, and we don't feel that BART executives have been doing that up til now," said [1555 President Jesse] Hunt.
BART spokesman Linton Johnson, speaking for district administrators, described the vote as disappointing but not ending the chance to broker an agreement that meets management's cost-savings goal of $100 million over four years.
For the time being, any strike would wait for these negotiations. They've been pretty on and off for a few weeks now, but bargaining in the current state of budget flux can be quite treacherous. The importance of BART to the Bay Area's economy cannot be overstated. It is a critical link for commuters throughout the region. Hopefully the negotiations will go forward in good faith and will result in a fair contract that keeps BART moving.
Disclosure: I was recently hired to work part time on a short term basis for TransForm on the Oakland Airport Connector campaign. However, the thoughts expressed in my posts on this subject are my own and should not be construed to be those of TransForm.
The campaign for a better connector is really heating up. The Oakland Port Commission directed their staff to work with BART to look at alternatives to the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC). Don Perata sent a hard-hitting letter to MTC arguing that the OAC is “too much money for too little transit and economic value.” And just last Thursday, several Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) members strongly questioned the project and asked staff about alternatives.
Doesn’t it seem like it’s time for the Oakland City Council to weigh in? Larry Reid and BART don’t think so.
Last Thursday, Councilmember Nancy Nadel asked the Council Rules Committee to put a review of the OAC on the agenda for the July 14th Public Works Committee meeting, which she chairs. Specifically, she asked to agendize the “Discussion And Possible Action On The Bay Area Rapid Transit’s (BART) Design And Construction Proposal, Funding Status, Local Job Projections, And Projected Ridership For The Oakland Airport Connector Project.”
It seems commonplace for the Chair of the Public Works Committee to ask to review a half billion dollar public works project that the Council hasn’t reviewed in many years and which has changed substantially over time. So when the item came to Rules Committee, it was largely expected that they’d put it on the agenda.
BART and Larry Reid didn’t want that to happen though. Kerry Hamill, from BART, spoke to the committee and urged them to hold off hearings until after recess, in September. Her stated reasoning was that the RFP was just released and that BART wouldn’t have solid numbers until then. The problem with that argument is that BART has been approaching agency after agency for funding, so although the final financial numbers may change a bit when proposals return, the numbers are solid enough to present to MTC, the Port, and ACTIA, which means they should be ready to present to Oakland.
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.
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 has been watching BART like a hawk in her posts here and at Living in the O. I had a chance to meet her the other day, and boy, she knows her transportation issues. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Yesterday, the Airport Area Business Association (AABA) sent an email to its membership asking them to write to the BART Board in support of the Oakland Airport Connector and to speak at tomorrow's meeting. My first thought was that this is incredibly short-sighted (or naive) of them because the OAC is going to do nothing for businesses surrounding the airport, since there are no intermediary stops. A free rapid bus, in comparison, would do a lot for the area businesses by making transit cheaper and by adding an intermediary stop.
But once I stopped banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what reasoning AABA could possibly have for supporting the OAC, I quickly found my answer by reading some of the contents of the email: (EDIT by Brian for space, see the flip)
Next Thursday, transit advocates have what will probably be our best chance to change the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) from an incredibly wasteful rail connection with $6 fares into a much cheaper rapid bus connection that could potentially be free for riders. At the last meeting, 11 of us spoke out against the current OAC project and in favor of a bus solution, and we made a huge difference, with the BART Board nearly unanimously agreeing to postpone the vote so more studies could be done on a rapid bus option. Imagine what a difference 50 or 100 of us could make next week.
Please join us at the BART Board meeting to reclaim transit funding for BART, AC Transit, and other Bay Area transit agencies and to secure a project that make sense for the region:
What: BART Board Meeting on the Oakland Airport Connector
When: Thursday, May 14th @ 9am (TransForm recommends showing up by 8:30 if you’d like to get a seat in the Board room; if not, there is an overflow room.)
Where: Kaiser Center – Third Floor, 344 20th Street in Oakland
If you cannot make it to the meeting, but want to tell the BART directors how you feel, 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.
OK, now that you’re on board to take action, onto the fun stuff. BART has put transit advocates in a similar situation to the one we just had in Oakland, when redevelopment staff refused to look into alternatives for the surface parking lot so advocates (well, mostly me and dto510) had to do research into displaying public art. Though the BART Board directed staff to look into a bus rapid transit (BRT) alternative, we weren’t convinced they would so TransForm went ahead and did the research themselves and produced a phenomenal report in two weeks about a bus alternative that they’re calling RapidBART. Pictured below is what RapidBART would look like, exiting the Coliseum BART station.
Last week I attended the BART Board meeting to weigh in on their brilliant plan to fully finance the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) through borrowing up to $150 million. The meeting was frustrating at times (and incredibly long), but in the end, Director Bob Franklin negotiated a compromise to bring the loan resolution back in two weeks, after they could get further information from staff. Though this win is temporary, it’s incredibly important because it gives advocates two more weeks to share our ideas with BART directors and to organize our community to call for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative.
Most of the more than two hour discussion on the OAC consisted of BART directors, staff, union members, and business interests talking about how great this project was and patting themselves on the back for finally getting the funding in place for this project that has been in the works for two decades. They also repeatedly called this a “legacy project”, just what Obama was thinking of when creating the stimulus bill.
But I’m not going to relive those moments here – they were just too maddening. Instead, I wanted to share the real highlights of the meeting, the speeches that kept me from exploding and rekindled my hope for sensible transit.
Though transit advocates, including me, only learned about this hearing two days ahead of time, eleven of us spoke out against the OAC and in favor of a cheaper alternative, like BRT. Every one of the advocates was compelling, but Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm, was especially convincing. Cohen presented the possibility of how BART could use existing committed funds to build a BRT airport connector and could use some of these funds for operating costs down the road. Based on his calculations, this would allow the BRT connector to be free, while the current OAC would cost $6 each way!
My favorite part of the meeting came after the public speakers weighed in, when Director Tom Radulovich of San Francisco, my new transit hero, spoke up. He was incredible! He asked all of the important questions and echoed the concerns of transit advocates.
I had a fun, lighthearted post planned for today, but thanks to BART, that will have to wait another day. Because shockingly, BART has gone and pissed me off once again. You might remember my post in February about the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC). If not, I’ll refresh your memory. The OAC is an absurdly expensive project that was basically dead due to lack of funding, but was revived when stimulus funds became available. Even though more than 100 people spoke out against applying $70 million of stimulus funds to the OAC, the MTC voted nearly unanimously (except Tom Bates) to fund the OAC.
Transit advocates were understandably upset by this vote, since Bay Area transit agencies desperately need those funds. But we held out some hope that this terrible project still might die and be revived into a cheaper and more useful Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. Why? Because even with the $70 million, BART was still about $100 million short in financing the project, and the MTC made it very clear that they needed to secure the rest of the funding by this June to be eligible for stimulus funds.
Yesterday, I found out what their financing plan is. No, they haven’t found some secret pot of federal or state money. No, they haven’t decided to nix Bart to San Jose and use the savings on the OAC. Their brilliant plan is to take out a loan of up to $150 million.
Yes, you read that right. While transit agencies across the nation, including BART, are raising fares and cutting service, BART is planning to take out a large loan to fund a project that could be completed for the third of the price if converted to BRT. BART staff is of course claiming that ridership on the OAC will be high enough to cover all debt service, but it’s hard for me to believe that, since historically BART’s ridership projections have been wildly high.
Still vivid in my memory is the night in March 1991 when I stayed up to watch the KTLA News at Ten for their breaking news, which turned out to be a shocking video of the LAPD beating the hell out of a guy they'd pulled over - Rodney King. It came against the background of rampant police brutality under the leadership of Darryl Gates, and even as I watched the video I knew that the public reaction would be furious.
At least Rodney King survived the attack. Oscar Grant did not. When he was shot and killed by a BART police officer on New Year's Day it revealed an ongoing lack of accountability from the BART police toward the public they serve. As the San Francisco Bay Guardian noted BART police have been involved in two other shooting deaths that appeared unjustified in recent years.
If that effort is going to be successful, the public needs to mobilize behind the creation of a civilian oversight board - that has real teeth - for the BART police.
Oscar Grant deserves justice, and the officer who shot him needs to be held accountable. We also need to work to ensure that this horrible event never happens again on the BART system. A civilian oversight board is a necessary step in that direction. Properly implemented, it can mandate changes in BART police methods, and provide the public transparency and accountability in police actions. The board can help get to the bottom of controversies and rebuild trust that is clearly lacking.
The civilian oversight board won't solve the problems alone. But it is a necessary part of the long-term solution.
The email we sent out today is reproduced over the flip.
KTVU Channel 2 and other Bay Area stations have been showing video of, and the SF Chronicle are reporting about angry protests in Oakland over the horrific BART police shooting of unarmed man Oscar Grant on New Year's Day:
A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed man mushroomed into a violent confrontation tonight, as a faction of protesters smashed a police car and storefronts, set several cars on fire and blocked streets in downtown Oakland....
The protest started peacefully shortly after 3 p.m. at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland, where BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle shot 22-year-old Oscar Grant of Hayward to death early New Year's Day. BART shut down the station well into the evening commute, although the demonstration there was peaceful.
However, shortly after nightfall, a group of roughly 200 protesters split off and head toward downtown Oakland, prompting the transit agency to close the Lake Merritt station.
Oakland Police Officer Michael Cardoza parked his car across the intersection of Eighth and Madison streets, to prevent traffic from flowing toward Broadway and into the protest. But he told The Chronicle that a group of 30 to 40 protesters quickly surrounded his car and started smashing it with bottles and rocks.
More at Daily Kos. It includes this YouTube video showing how Oaklanders have lost faith in the police - taunting arresting officers "why don't you shoot him?" and "pigs go home."
I've specifically tried to avoid calling this a "riot" and oversensationalizing this, because the protest's turn shouldn't take away from the real story here, which is the growing intensity of public outrage over the obviously unjustified shooting death of Oscar Grant at Fruitvale Station by BART officer Johannes Mehserle. Mehserle has refused to answer questions about the shooting, and BART police have apparently been VERY slow to get information.
The shooting death, and the public outcry, may well be predictable outcomes of three decades of militarizing the police, limiting and eroding fundamental Constitutional protections of individual rights, and a deliberate decision by many Americans to simply abandon cities like Oakland to their fate.
When police officers feel they can act with impunity, the public loses faith in their honesty and their ability to fairly offer justice. Police brutality and even murders have become all too commonplace in many American communities. And let us not forget that many of the practices of Guantanamo Bay were first tried out in American prisons.
Whatever happens in Oakland tonight, and in the coming days and weeks, it should hopefully become clear that America's approach to policing needs to undergo a fundamental change. Of course, Oakland was the scene of a similar turning point 40 years ago with the rise of the Black Panthers. We will see whether this time the right choices are made.
In Santa Clara County they want to extend Bay Area Rapid Transit down to San Jose. To fund this they put Measure B, a 1/8 cent sales tax, on the ballot. In California all tax measures must pass by a 2/'3 margin and on Election Day the voters approved Measure B by a 2/3 margin.
That would be the end of it, except the vote was very close to exactly 2/3. For several days it looked as though the measure would fail because it reached a few votes short of exactly 66.66% but when the last ballot was counted the result was 66.78% in favor. So in the face of a 2/3 vote by the people, a group sued to block certification pending a recount. Yes, with 2/3 of the public voting for this, a group sued to stop it!
I doubt I was the only Californian who had some nasty feelings of déjà vu upon seeing the reports from the horrific collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minnesota. I still vividly remember Game 3 of the 1989 World Series being knocked off the air by the Loma Prieta quake, and one of the first scenes shown by the news was of the collapsed Interstate 880 in West Oakland. I also remember being rudely awoken by the 1994 Northridge quake, and seeing the footage of the collapsed portion of Interstate 10 in LA, or of the destroyed CA-14/I-5 interchange in Santa Clarita. Nearly 50 people died as a result of these events. Living in earthquake country, we are acutely aware of how susceptible our bridges are to failure.
