oakland BART extension
Keith Keller
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/07/BACC1A2F4B.DTL
Personally, I'm really surprised that this was approved, given the
boondoggle that the SFO extension has become. But I don't use OAK
enough to know whether this is actually a good idea or not. Any
frequent OAK flyers have any thoughts?
Even if it's a bad idea, though, we can take small comfort in the fact
that at least they're not building east past Pittsburg, which I'm sure
BART would love to do.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Peter Lawrence
>
> Speaking of the Chronicle:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/07/BACC1A2F4B.DTL
>
> Personally, I'm really surprised that this was approved, given the
> boondoggle that the SFO extension has become. But I don't use OAK
> enough to know whether this is actually a good idea or not. Any
> frequent OAK flyers have any thoughts?
>
> Even if it's a bad idea, though, we can take small comfort in the fact
> that at least they're not building east past Pittsburg, which I'm sure
> BART would love to do.
>
> --keith
It's not actually a BART extension per se, but an Automated Guideway Transit
(i.e. People Mover) system like what is now used at SFO to connect the
terminals with SFO's car rental facility. IOW, it's a way to connect BART
to the Oakland Airport in a manner that *should* have been done at SFO too,
but wasn't.
- Peter
David Nebenzahl
> Keith Keller wrote:
>>
>> Speaking of the Chronicle:
>>
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/07/BACC1A2F4B.DTL
>>
>> Personally, I'm really surprised that this was approved, given the
>> boondoggle that the SFO extension has become. But I don't use OAK
>> enough to know whether this is actually a good idea or not. Any
>> frequent OAK flyers have any thoughts?
>>
>> Even if it's a bad idea, though, we can take small comfort in the fact
>> that at least they're not building east past Pittsburg, which I'm sure
>> BART would love to do.
>
> It's not actually a BART extension per se, but an Automated Guideway
> Transit (i.e. People Mover) system like what is now used at SFO to
> connect the terminals with SFO's car rental facility. IOW, it's a way
> to connect BART to the Oakland Airport in a manner that *should* have
> been done at SFO too, but wasn't.
You're pushing what's called a distinction without a difference. If it
looks like a BART extension, smells like a BART extension, and, most
importantly, *costs* like a BART extension, then it is, for all intents
and purposes, a BART extension. (Or as Ric Silver used to write, "a BART
extention".)
And what *should* have been done at SFO is still highly arguable: lots
of folks, myself included, would have voted for Caltrain into the
airport (either directly or via a "people mover" link), not BART.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Peter Lawrence
> On 10/10/2009 12:16 AM Peter Lawrence spake thus:
>> Keith Keller wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of the Chronicle:
>>>
>>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/07/BACC1A2F4B.DTL
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I'm really surprised that this was approved, given the
>>> boondoggle that the SFO extension has become. But I don't use OAK
>>> enough to know whether this is actually a good idea or not. Any
>>> frequent OAK flyers have any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Even if it's a bad idea, though, we can take small comfort in the fact
>>> that at least they're not building east past Pittsburg, which I'm sure
>>> BART would love to do.
>>
>> It's not actually a BART extension per se, but an Automated Guideway
>> Transit (i.e. People Mover) system like what is now used at SFO to
>> connect the terminals with SFO's car rental facility. IOW, it's a way
>> to connect BART to the Oakland Airport in a manner that *should* have
>> been done at SFO too, but wasn't.
>
> You're pushing what's called a distinction without a difference. If it
> looks like a BART extension, smells like a BART extension, and, most
> importantly, *costs* like a BART extension, then it is, for all intents
> and purposes, a BART extension. (Or as Ric Silver used to write, "a BART
> extention".)
Except it won't look like a BART extension (different looking rail cars,
different type of track) nor is the track per mile projected to cost
anywhere near the cost of a true BART extension. It should be a lot cheaper
alternative than actually extending BART into the Oakland Airport. As I
said, it will have more similarities to the SFO people mover than to a
regular BART train.
- Peter
Keith Keller
>
> Except it won't look like a BART extension (different looking rail cars,
> different type of track) nor is the track per mile projected to cost
> anywhere near the cost of a true BART extension. It should be a lot cheaper
> alternative than actually extending BART into the Oakland Airport. As I
> said, it will have more similarities to the SFO people mover than to a
> regular BART train.
Except for the cost per rider, which is free at SFO, and
''undetermined'' to OAK according to BART, but certainly not free. Yet
Airtrain at SFO is free, even though it cost $430 million (according to
Wikipedia, so it must be true), where the OAK extension is currently
projected to cost $500 million by BART, which means it'll probably be
closer to $750 million.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the OAK people mover won't be
significantly cheaper than a full-on BART extension. The real problem
is that it'll cost as much as SFO's free people mover to build but will
cost as much as BART to ride.
Peter Lawrence
> On 2009-10-10, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Except it won't look like a BART extension (different looking rail cars,
>> different type of track) nor is the track per mile projected to cost
>> anywhere near the cost of a true BART extension. It should be a lot cheaper
>> alternative than actually extending BART into the Oakland Airport. As I
>> said, it will have more similarities to the SFO people mover than to a
>> regular BART train.
>
> Except for the cost per rider, which is free at SFO, and
> ''undetermined'' to OAK according to BART, but certainly not free. Yet
> Airtrain at SFO is free, even though it cost $430 million (according to
> Wikipedia, so it must be true), where the OAK extension is currently
> projected to cost $500 million by BART, which means it'll probably be
> closer to $750 million.
>
> I don't think anyone is arguing that the OAK people mover won't be
> significantly cheaper than a full-on BART extension. The real problem
> is that it'll cost as much as SFO's free people mover to build but will
> cost as much as BART to ride.
But the SFO People Mover doesn't connect BART to SFO, so it's a moot point
that it's free. What's not known is what additional fare, if any, it will
cost to take BART via its People Mover connector to the Oakland Airport.
As example, currently the one-way fare between Concord and the Coliseum
station is $4.00. The question is, what will the one-way fare between
Concord and the new Oakland Airport station be? If it's $5.00, then the
additional cost would be one dollar (one-way). But if the one-way fare is
$4.00, then the BART rider would not be paying any additional fare to take
BART (and its Oakland Airport People Mover) all the way to the Oakland
Airport's terminals. So we will have to wait and see how BART decides to
set up the fares to and from the Oakland Airport.
- Peter
Keith Keller
>
> As example, currently the one-way fare between Concord and the Coliseum
> station is $4.00. The question is, what will the one-way fare between
> Concord and the new Oakland Airport station be? If it's $5.00, then the
> additional cost would be one dollar (one-way). But if the one-way fare is
> $4.00, then the BART rider would not be paying any additional fare to take
> BART (and its Oakland Airport People Mover) all the way to the Oakland
> Airport's terminals. So we will have to wait and see how BART decides to
> set up the fares to and from the Oakland Airport.
From what I've read so far, both on sfgate and the BART web site, the
fare from Coliseum BART to the airport will continue to be a separate
fare, as it is now on AirBART. (It's hard to find details on how
ticketing will be done; if anyone has a pointer I'd appreciate it.)
Also from what I've read, the fare will depend on the actual
construction costs. If history is any indication, the initial fare will
be about $100 one way.
Obviously there's a lot of cynicism toward BART and its new construction
projects. But can you blame us? Their projects grossly overrun
estimates (not that that's unusual for government projects), their
revenue and ridership estimates are overgenerous, and they use capital
funds to expand and maintain the suburban portion of BART while mostly
ignoring needed maintenance and improvements in the BART core (e.g., San
Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley). Imagine, for example, if the money they
spent on the Pittsburg and Dublin lines (and the money they're about to
spend on Warm Springs) had been used instead to help fund a new transbay
tube; *that* would be money well-spent, even if they didn't expand
capacity through San Francisco.
So, as I mentioned, give BART at least a tiny shred of credit: at least
they're doing a capital project in Oakland instead of Livermore or
Brentwood.
David Nebenzahl
> On 2009-10-11, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> As example, currently the one-way fare between Concord and the Coliseum
>> station is $4.00. The question is, what will the one-way fare between
>> Concord and the new Oakland Airport station be? If it's $5.00, then the
>> additional cost would be one dollar (one-way). But if the one-way fare is
>> $4.00, then the BART rider would not be paying any additional fare to take
>> BART (and its Oakland Airport People Mover) all the way to the Oakland
>> Airport's terminals. So we will have to wait and see how BART decides to
>> set up the fares to and from the Oakland Airport.
>
> From what I've read so far, both on sfgate and the BART web site, the
> fare from Coliseum BART to the airport will continue to be a separate
> fare, as it is now on AirBART. (It's hard to find details on how
> ticketing will be done; if anyone has a pointer I'd appreciate it.)
You just gotta look in the right place. According to the /Berkeley Daily
Planet/ (http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-10-08/article/33894):
Current plans call for a one-way ride on the connector to cost $6.
From the same article we learn that (unnamed) "project opponents" say
that a rapid bus service connecting the Coliseum BART station to the
airport would cost between $45 and $60 million (compared to the current
$0.5 billion and climbing).
Note to Oaktowners: Councilmembers Nadel and Kaplan abstained from the
recent vote to approve this project.
David Nebenzahl
> Speaking of the Chronicle:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/07/BACC1A2F4B.DTL
>
> Personally, I'm really surprised that this was approved, given the
> boondoggle that the SFO extension has become. But I don't use OAK
> enough to know whether this is actually a good idea or not. Any
> frequent OAK flyers have any thoughts?
Not a frequent flyer anywhere, but don't let that stop me from
commenting on this situation.
Here's the deal: the primary reason to hate hate hate hate hate this
project is its exorbitant cost (currently $0.5 billion and rising
inexorably). That's construction cost, mind you, never mind operation.
Money taken from much more deserving transportation needs from a very
finite pot of money.
The second possible source of outrage over this project is the fare that
eventually gets assigned; currently unknown, but an article in the
/Berkeley Daily Planet/ has it pegged at $6. That part doesn't bother me
so much. I recently took BART from SFO for the first time. The total
cost of my trip home (to within 1/2 mile of where I live) cost me, ummm,
don't remember exactly but it was less than $10. So much less than any
other mode--taxi, shuttle--that it can only be considered a screamin'
deal. So while I do think the SFO BART surcharge is unconscionable and
outrageous, the net result is still a very good deal, at least for
occasional riders; not so good, of course, for, say, SFO employees, who
one would think would be exempt from the surcharge.
And of course our miserable excuse for a mayor can only look at this
project in the most myopic possible way--as a temporary generator of
jobs (hopefully preferentially for Oaklanders, but of course that is in
no way assured). Who cares if we piss away *half a billion dollars* in
the process?
The rest of the weak objections raised by the nominal opposition on the
city council (Brunner, et al) consisted of sops like trying to get
additional stops on the line. The only way to characterize this would be
"putting lipstick on a pig".
Jonz
WOW!! I didn't realize you liked this project that much. Sounds like a
heckova deal to me too.
Jonz
Keith Keller
>
> You just gotta look in the right place. According to the /Berkeley Daily
> Planet/ (http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-10-08/article/33894):
>
> Current plans call for a one-way ride on the connector to cost $6.
This article also mentioned the $6:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/06/BAEF1A1833.DTL
I thought I read something where the BART wonk claimed the $6 was not
part of the plan, and that the fare would depend on the final
construction costs. But now I can't find that quote. Ah, here it is:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/09/BADH1A2NT3.DTL
"Molly McArthur, a BART spokeswoman, said ticket prices were based on
conjecture. Ticket prices cannot be determined until a contractor - and
final cost - is announced, she said."
So I didn't want to mention the $6, giving BART the benefit of the
doubt. But now that it's out, $6 one-way, on top of the fare to get to
Coliseum BART, is completely ridiculous. From Downtown Berkeley, at
current fares, that would make a trip to OAK $8.35, vs. to SFO $8.65.
Yeah, that extra 30 cents is going to make more people fly out of
Oakland instead of SFO.
> From the same article we learn that (unnamed) "project opponents" say
> that a rapid bus service connecting the Coliseum BART station to the
> airport would cost between $45 and $60 million (compared to the current
> $0.5 billion and climbing).
I wonder if that rapid bus service means dedicated traffic lanes on
Hegenberger. If not it doesn't really change much from the current
AirBART service.
I've only gone through OAK via BART a few times. I never had any
problems taking the AC Transit 58 bus, but this was always at offpeak
hours, never at rush hour. Or perhaps it was always the 50 (which is
what it is now)?
David Nebenzahl
> I thought I read something where the BART wonk claimed the $6 was not
> part of the plan, and that the fare would depend on the final
> construction costs. But now I can't find that quote. Ah, here it is:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/09/BADH1A2NT3.DTL
>
> "Molly McArthur, a BART spokeswoman, said ticket prices were based on
> conjecture. Ticket prices cannot be determined until a contractor - and
> final cost - is announced, she said."
>
> So I didn't want to mention the $6, giving BART the benefit of the
> doubt. But now that it's out, $6 one-way, on top of the fare to get to
> Coliseum BART, is completely ridiculous. From Downtown Berkeley, at
> current fares, that would make a trip to OAK $8.35, vs. to SFO $8.65.
> Yeah, that extra 30 cents is going to make more people fly out of
> Oakland instead of SFO.
Well, as I said in another post, keep in mind that compared to other
ways of getting to the airport (OAK), $8.35 still ain't bad, at least
for occasional travelers. In a just world, airport employees who use the
service *should* be exempt from the $6 (or whatever it ends up being)
cost. Yeah, that'll happen.
van...@vsta.org
> I've only gone through OAK via BART a few times. I never had any
> problems taking the AC Transit 58 bus, but this was always at offpeak
> hours, never at rush hour.
I commuted through OAK->BART for about a year, using the BART
connection bus. It was a pain having to deal with a whole separate
payment system (with the inevitable broken equipment), and waiting
for the connection, and trundling in and out of moderately crowded
buses. The trip along city streets didn't seem to ever encounter bad
traffic, but there were still stop lights and all the usual twists
and turns. I'd guess it overall added at least 30 minutes to my
travel time.
Andy Valencia
cph
> Here's the deal: the primary reason to hate hate hate hate hate this
> project is its exorbitant cost (currently $0.5 billion and rising
> inexorably). That's construction cost, mind you, never mind operation.
> Money taken from much more deserving transportation needs from a very
> finite pot of money.
>
It really should have been paid for with airport funds, not transit--
assuming
it needed to be built at all....
> The second possible source of outrage over this project is the fare that
> eventually gets assigned; currently unknown, but an article in the
> /Berkeley Daily Planet/ has it pegged at $6.
What's AirBart now? About $3 or so?
>
> The rest of the weak objections raised by the nominal opposition on the
> city council (Brunner, et al) consisted of sops like trying to get
> additional stops on the line. The only way to characterize this would be
> "putting lipstick on a pig".
All that would do is slow the ride down for people getting to/from the
airport...
Keith Keller
>
> It really should have been paid for with airport funds, not transit--
> assuming
> it needed to be built at all....
Assuming so, MTC could probably force its way in with less cooperation
from the city of Oakland than the airport by itself could have.