Michael Krueger had a great “My Word” in Friday’s paper, explaining BART’s push for the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) and how it could affect the BART system in the future (and thus affect Alameda riders who make up a huge proportion of riders at Fruitvale BART).
Since the year 2000, cost estimates have ballooned over 300 percent, from $130 million to over half a billion dollars. Despite claims that the system would be profitable, all attempts to lure private investment in the OAC have failed. That means taxpayers will be left holding the bag if ridership falls short of the rosy predictions used to sell the project, just as they did for the BART extensions to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae.
TransForm, where I work, has released a proposal for BRT solution that would cost 10% of the OAC, and using BART’s ridership analysis, looks to have higher ridership than is projected for the OAC.
Take a couple of seconds today and ask BART to study their options before blowing half-a-billion on a slow, costly people-mover in the sky.
The price difference makes BRT the obvious choice, but I have to question the claim that BRT would enjoy greater ridership. It would depend on how the stop & transfer are organized. Right now the bus connection requires a wait of unknown duration at street level, which given the neighborhood, is a deal breaker for a great number of people.
If the train connection is in the station, the improved safety — whether real or perceived — would make it the obvious choice for many over a bus stop outside.
And it’s amusing to see 2 Sun Cal cheerleaders so concerned about costs….but that’s for another thread, I ‘spose.
Living in the O has a great piece on the BART connection to OAK as well.
You know I’m a fan of cute pod like vehicles (oh SMARTcar you will be mine one of these days) but if BRT works just as well and at a fraction of the cost it would be sensible alternative to the people mover.
How exactly would being in favor of the only remotely financially feasible plan for the redevelopment of Alameda Point disqualify someone from being concerned about cost effectiveness?
At any rate, if you still find that amusing, then you’ll surely bust a gut when you hear from those who are supporting a public land trust with no source of funding to pay for it, not to mention those who are trying to resurrect dusty old plans from the dot-com boom that were written before the degraded condition of the Point’s infrastructure was even recognized. Now that’s a laugh riot!
MK says: You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists err David Howard.
At least you admit Suncal’s plan is only remotely feasible.
I don’t get it. BART’s SFO extension was a huge financial mistake, so why do they want to do the same thing again at OAK? Where BART needs to focus its priorities is not adding new lines, but improving the existing infrastructure so people can ride in reasonably clean comfort without having to wait too long for a train with room for more passengers.
Jill, that would be a perfect message to pass along to the BART board. You could just copy your comment, paste it into the “your letter” field of this handy form, fill in some minimal contact information, and hit “send”:
http://act.transformca.org/t/4619/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=656
The members of the board really need to hear what their constituents think BART’s priorities should be.
MK:
Pls cite the post where I advocate for a public land trust. Extra credit if you find me saying it’s financially feasible. Graduate TA grant awarded if you figure out there are more ways than yours & the highway.
Another thing that puts the BRT ahead of the people mover plan is that I understand that the BRT could be run without requiring the users to pay, as opposed to the people mover which would have to be subsidized by the rider on top of their BART ticket already. This alone would make potential users think twice about using BART to get to OAK if there is the additional fee on the second leg. That there is a second leg already is a deteriment but a fee on top of that adds insult to injury.
Also I was reading on Living in the O that the people mover wouldn’t stop near the terminal anyway, instead it would stop between the terminals as opposed to the BRT which could stop directly in front of the terminals like AirBART or if someone was dropping you off.
Dave, I should have cut my comment short after the first paragraph without lumping you in with the supporters of the land trust or the high-tech business park and cruise ship terminal. Just because I don’t recall seeing you comment on the financial feasibility of such plans doesn’t mean that you support them.
Anyway, these comments are supposed to be about BART. As you rightly suggested, the Alameda Point debate is best saved for some other time and place.