How the airlines see BART/SFO
Adrian Brandt
From the San Francisco Chronicle, Monday 7/17, page A19:
OPEN FORUM -- How Airlines See BART Plan
by Carol Hallett
THE AIRLINES have been on the receiving end of public accusations about
our alleged efforts to stop BART's planned extension to San Francisco
International Airport. Since the industry does support BART's extension
to SFO, it is time to correct the record and to talk facts with Bay Area
citizens.
* Fact 1: The airlines serving SFO support a plan previously approved by
the BART board to build a multimodal station on the west side of Highway
101 that would allow both BART and CalTrain passengers to take public
transportation to the airport.
What the airlines do not support is the proposal to put the BART station
under the planned new international terminal. That plan raises a number of
operational, security and financial concerns that BART is unable to resolve.
* Fact 2: The BART plan to go into the airport will serve fewer riders and
citizens of the Bay Area. The multimodal station on the westside of Highway
101 will allow airline passengers an easy connection from the entire region,
including the fast-growing Peninsula area, which would be unserved by a
BART-in-the-airport station. Almost two-thirds of SFO's employees live south
of the airport and will not have a convenient mass transit link to the
airport if BART goes into the airport. A station that BART and Cal
Train could serve would guarantee more public transportation riders to and
from the airport and fewer autos on the roads.
* Fact 3: The multimodal station would be more convenient. Riders taking
either BART or CalTrain to SFO would disembark, check their baggage with a
skycap and then walk across the platform to board a light rail system that
would serve all terminals. Compare that to the plan adopted by BART with a
station under the planned international terminal -- up to a half mile away
from domestic terminals. Even getting to the people mover would require
passengers to ascend several stories and walk more than 200 feet -- almost
the length of a football field -- with their luggage. The result will be
more traffic as passengers take a cab or car in order to be dropped off or
picked up at their terminal.
* Fact 4: Airports are financed by the users -- and not with general tax
revenues. SFO is about to embark on a $2 billion expansion that will create
thousands of jobs and greatly benefit the Bay Area economy -- and be paid
for by the airline industry in the form of landing fees, rents and other
charges. Taxpayers will not pay for the expansion; the airlines will be
backing the bonds and providing the revenue for the airport to pay them off.
* Fact 5: With the House and Senate finalizing plans to balance the federal
budget within seven years, many federal programs will be drastically cut or
eliminated. Public transit grants are on the top of the list, and BART
officials and state Senator Quentin Kopp are fooling Bay Area voters by
promising that federal funding would be guaranteed if the airlines would
change their position.
Serious questions about federal funding for BART to SFO have existed from
the outset. The fact that BART chose the most expensive and problematic
plan, which is not supported by communities in San Mateo County, has led to
the current situation. BART is hoping for $800 million from the federal
government. If public transit grants are eliminated, what is BART's
contingency plan?
The airline industry is proud of the role we play in the Bay Area
economy, and proud of the fact that San Francisco International Airport is a
leading gateway for U.S. transportation and commerce. We can take criticism
when it is warranted, but vicious charges by politicians and others are
simply political rhetoric lacking facts and common sense.
- - - - - - - -
[Carol Hallet is president and chief executive officer of the Air Transport
Association, which represents over 20 major U.S. airlines and three foreign
carriers that transport 95 percent of all airline passenger and cargo
traffic in the United States. Hallett previously represented the central
coast in the California state Assembly and was the minority leader from
1979 to 1982.]
--
Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
a...@ntmtv.com
Colin R. Leech
Public agencies normally consult with their users or potential users on
major changes. In this case, the users (the airlines) are supporting a
sensible plan, yet some politicans and bureaucrats in the Bay Area are
pressing ahead with the BART-under-the-international-terminal plan.
If they won't listen to the users and economic realities, who will they
listen to?
--
Colin R. Leech |-> Civil engineer by training, transportation
ag...@freenet.carleton.ca |-> planner by choice, trombonist by hobby.
Nepean, Ontario, Canada |-> "I'd like a penny." - Tom Downs, Amtrak.
My opinions are my own, not my employer's. You may consider them shareware.
Alan A Hirsch
>From: rls...@aol.com (RLS9348)
>Subject: Re: How the airlines see BART/SFO
>Date: 24 Jul 1995 22:53:07 -0400
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) posted:
>CL>Public agencies normally consult with their users or potential users on
>CL>major changes. In this case, the users (the airlines) are supporting a
>CL>sensible plan, yet some politicans and bureaucrats in the Bay Area are
>CL>pressing ahead with the BART-under-the-international-terminal plan.
>CL>If they won't listen to the users and economic realities, who will they
>CL>listen to?
Rs>First, I thought the "users" of transit were people not big corporations.
RS>While they certainly should have some imput in the final decision, that
RS>are not always known to be concerned about the public's intrests as much
RS>as their own.
Come on. Don't pay nieve. Don't campaign contributions effect stuff?
Another model...
Major infrastruction decision are political not "market" driven
decisions. If it was pure Market, then riders would have a big say--as
the profit of privately owned transit would important. But
the because transit is a monopoly, and it involves public goods, and the
allocation of resources to one transit project over another is a political
one....it is not a market driven process:
1) Most voters are not Transit users,
2) Voters can't judge something until its built...so it all perception and
no reality during the decision state. (perception is media is dollars)
3) Rational decision making on transit takes some knowledge and study of
the issues, fact, and situation. Most voters don't/can't spend the time.
The only time 99% of the riders spend the time to study the project, and
really get to vote, is after the dollars are spent and they vote with their
feet(fares).
The feedback loop between riders to voter to politicians via elections is
decades...the politicians are long gone before votes can unelect them and
throw them out of office.
The feedback loop, and reward system from the other stake holders in the
decision making process is alot faster, and thus counts for a
lot more in the political decision making process...
a) Land owners near stations & construction
(big developers, home owners) (campaign contributors)
b) Local Employeers Corporations who want to meet TSM decisions
c) Retailers near stations (pro and con transit)
d) Transit bureaucracies (empire builder, controllers of resources)
e) Consultants and construction companies and unions who get jobs
f) Environmentalist, transit advocates
Example: we are building more B-2 bomber not because the pentagon wants them,
but the other constituencies want them built to get the other benefits.
Transit Example: Why was the first light rail line Santa Clara County
build through downtown and up North First Street. Few people lives
along the route. What constituency was is serving? The San Jose Merchants
and Land Owners up First Street is my guess, but it certainly wasn't the
riders (who voted with their feet and stay away in droves).
RS> Second, the "politicans and bureaucrats" are listening to the "user"
RS>(better know as the current and future riders). There have be
RS> several election on this issue. All being decieded by big margins.
RS> Should they ignore those elections? and if so how do you suggest
RS> they
RS> explain that to>the voters?
These are the "2" BART to SFO votes everyone likes to cite:
1994 San Francisco Voters Ok'ed spending someone elses money on BART to SFO
extension in someone elses city/county. (Its easy to spend someone else's
money and vote how they should plan their communities.)
1988 San Mateo County voted a $500 million plan (not 1.2 Bil) to extend BART
to an External station. They were promised no impact on CalTrain, dramatic
traffic reductions (55k cars a day), no impact on taxes.
Reality after project was studied..the best BART and othe could do:
The location of station is change, impacts on CalTrain and Traffic are 180
degree opposite was told to voters, and tax impact is no longer true.
Sure, we can cite the sound byte, the perception of the "Voter Mandate".
But reality it different. There is no mandate for what is being proposed once
you tellfolks about the different assumptions...trouble is it takes money
to get access to the media....
The arguments Rick makes is good politics, but bad transit.
RS>Richard L Silver, bureaucrat
Rs>San Mateo County, CA
RS>415-368-7112
RS>PS. Are you a advocate for the Airlines? Do you believe in the democratic
RS>process?
Why are you inputing Collin's motives? Are personal attacks necessary?
RLS9348
CL>Public agencies normally consult with their users or potential users on
CL>major changes. In this case, the users (the airlines) are supporting a
CL>sensible plan, yet some politicans and bureaucrats in the Bay Area are
CL>pressing ahead with the BART-under-the-international-terminal plan.
CL>If they won't listen to the users and economic realities, who will they
CL>listen to?
RS>First, I thought the "users" of transit were people not big
corporations.
RS>While they certainly should have some imput in the final decision, that
RS>are not always known to be concerned about the public's intrests as
much
RS>as their own.
AH>Come on. Don't pay nieve. Don't campaign contributions effect stuff?
Alan, If your so right, then what's the use of trying to do anything? Why
don't we just give up?
RS> Second, the "politicans and bureaucrats" are listening to the "user"
RS>(better know as the current and future riders). There have be
RS> several election on this issue. All being decieded by big margins.
RS> Should they ignore those elections? and if so how do you suggest
RS> they explain that to>the voters?
AH>These are the "2" BART to SFO votes everyone likes to cite:
AH>1994 San Francisco Voters Ok'ed spending someone elses money on BART
AH>to SFO extension in someone elses city/county. (Its easy to spend
AH>someone else's money and vote how they should plan their communities.)
AH>1988 San Mateo County voted a $500 million plan (not 1.2 Bil)
(Distortion #1
As you so often say in this group, Measure K did not have a dollar amount
in it, it was a policy question.
AH> to extend BART to an External station. (Distortion#2)
The measure said "to SFO", and although I agree that an extenal station
would be better, a station inside the airport would meet this requirement.
AH>They were promised no impact on CalTrain,(Distortion #3)
Connecting BART to CalTrain will benefit both system, as it will allow
riders to tranfer easily. How can connecting two rail systems result is
worse service?
AH>dramatic traffic reductions (55k cars a day) (Distortion #4)
More and better transit sould get people of the road, if it doesen't then
it shouldn't be done. Connecting BART with CalTrain, thereby improving
transit options, will cause more people to use both systems.
AH>no impact on taxes. (Distortion #5)
Alan, please explain this one
AH>Sure, we can cite the sound byte, the perception of the "Voter
Mandate".
AH>But reality it different. There is no mandate for what is being
proposed once
AH>you tellfolks about the different assumptions...trouble is it takes
money
AH>to get access to the media....
Perhaps your having trouble because no body agrees with you. If they do
agree, then why not start an inititive and change the last election.
Pehaps you would like to debate this in public?
RS>PS. Are you a advocate for the Airlines? Do you believe in the
democratic
RS>process?
AH>Why are you inputing Collin's motives? Are personal attacks necessary?
I was commenting on you motives Alan.
Richard L Silver
San Mateo County, CA
415-368-7112
Larry Stone
> Second, the "politicans and bureaucrats" are listening to the "user" (
> better know as the current and future riders). There have be several
> election on this issue. All being decieded by big margins. Should they
> ignore those elections? and if so how do you suggest they explain that to
> the voters?
>
> Richard L Silver, bureaucrat
Dear Mr. "Bureaucrat":
I'm a voter in San Mateo County and I've yet to see it on any ballot on which I
was entitled to vote. The only election of which I am aware was the one in San
Francisco which is one small portion of the electorate affected.
Besides, one of the jobs of government is to give the public what they need
which is not always the same as what they want. I very much doubt the average
voter really understands all the issues involved as this whole thing has become
far too political. The voices of reason are being drowned out by the
politicians (e.g. Kopp) trying to make names for themselves.
--
Larry Stone | United Airlines
VAX and HP-UX Systems Administrator | Maintenance Operations Center
sto...@eisner.decus.org | San Francisco, CA 415-634-4725
All opinions are mine, not United's.
Glen Elder
: Public agencies normally consult with their users or potential users on
: major changes. In this case, the users (the airlines) are supporting a
: sensible plan, yet some politicans and bureaucrats in the Bay Area are
: pressing ahead with the BART-under-the-international-terminal plan.
: If they won't listen to the users and economic realities, who will they
: listen to?
Much of the public in the San Francisco Bay area is afraid that a
BART station not at the airport will end up like the BART to Oakland
airport shuttle bus. There is no schedual for when the shuttles arrive,
the waiting area is out of sight of the station attendent and there are
no security guards, the waiting area is not well lighted and the
neighborhood is not the best. After one trip using the shuttle I now
drive and park at the airport.
In other words, the BART to Oakland Airport transfer is a known
disaster, and much of the public doesn't expect a better job would be
done on a BART to SFO transfer station.
John Lazzaro
>
> Much of the public in the San Francisco Bay area is afraid that a
>BART station not at the airport will end up like the BART to Oakland
>airport shuttle bus. There is no schedual for when the shuttles arrive,
>the waiting area is out of sight of the station attendent and there are
>no security guards, the waiting area is not well lighted and the
>neighborhood is not the best. After one trip using the shuttle I now
>drive and park at the airport.
>
You can wait inside the station until the AirBART vans show up if
you'd prefer, there's plenty of time to make the short walk outside,
and you can see the street from inside. Although I've waited outside 5
AM for AC Transit buses several times and never felt I was in a
dangerous situation; and once daylight hits there is always dozens of
people waiting for buses.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lazzaro My Home Page: http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
laz...@cs.berkeley.edu Chipmunk CAD: http://www.pcmp.caltech.edu/chipmunk/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin R. Leech
Glen Elder (el...@wco.com) writes:
> Much of the public in the San Francisco Bay area is afraid that a
> BART station not at the airport will end up like the BART to Oakland
> airport shuttle bus. There is no schedual for when the shuttles arrive,
At times when the frequency of BART is not good, the shuttle should of
course be timed to meet the trains. Often a good idea is lost in the
details of the implementation.
> the waiting area is out of sight of the station attendent and there are
> no security guards, the waiting area is not well lighted and the
> neighborhood is not the best.
Silas Warner
> BART station not at the airport will end up like the BART to Oakland
> airport shuttle bus. There is no schedual for when the shuttles arrive,
> no security guards, the waiting area is not well lighted and the
> drive and park at the airport.
>
> disaster, and much of the public doesn't expect a better job would be
> done on a BART to SFO transfer station.
>
AirBART shuttle is such a disaster is that the competing AC Transit
bus service is often faster, cheaper and more reliable. When I go
to Oakland Airport I use whichever arrives first, and I have found
that about 3/4 of the time the AC Transit bus gets there before any
AirBART shuttles show up. This is especially true on weekends, when
AirBART advertises service every 15 minutes but rarely gets more than
every 30 minutes, and sometimes fails to run at all.
Silas Warner
dm...@delphi.com
>I have to agree with Colin on this point. One of the reasons the
>AirBART shuttle is such a disaster is that the competing AC Transit
>bus service is often faster, cheaper and more reliable. When I go
>to Oakland Airport I use whichever arrives first, and I have found
>that about 3/4 of the time the AC Transit bus gets there before any
>AirBART shuttles show up. This is especially true on weekends, when
(they will honor any other transit companies disable ID Card)
so the fare would be cheaper on AC Transit.
(beside I like OAK airport better then San Francisco
Pierre A Plauzoles
In a previous article, rls...@aol.com (RLS9348) says:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) posted:
>
>CL>Public agencies normally consult with their users or potential users on
>CL>major changes. In this case, the users (the airlines) are supporting a
>CL>sensible plan, yet some politicans and bureaucrats in the Bay Area are
>CL>pressing ahead with the BART-under-the-international-terminal plan.
>CL>If they won't listen to the users and economic realities, who will they
>CL>listen to?
>
>First, I thought the "users" of transit were people not big corporations.
>While they certainly should have some input in the final decision, that
>are not always known to be concerned about the public's intrests as much
>as their own.
I think the problem here is the fact that the airlines probably were the
ones who spoke up.
>Second, the "politicans and bureaucrats" are listening to the "user" (
>better known as the current and future riders).
Rapid transit goes over better in some areas than in others, particularly
when the proponents are better at public relations and there is a good
sense of public trust in place.
--
Pierre Plauzoles ae...@lafn.org
Canoga Park, California
Cathryn Mataga
>
> STUFF
You know, what I really think is that the main anxiety of BART is really
the fear that BART will bring with it crime and homeless. (And, yes, I know
the homeless and criminal population are different) I think you'll find
that there are a large number of homeless who buy their BART ticket and
sleep on the trains during the day -- and get off at a station at night.
Since the airport is open 24 hours a day, it'll be a natural attraction
for the homeless to disembark there, once there day's sleeping is over.
To panhandle, legally of course, with people at the airport.
Colin R. Leech
Silas Warner (si...@velo.com) writes:
>> Colin R. Leech (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>>
>> Much of the public in the San Francisco Bay area is afraid that a
>> BART station not at the airport will end up like the BART to Oakland
>> airport shuttle bus. There is no schedual for when the shuttles arrive,
>> disaster, and much of the public doesn't expect a better job would be
>> done on a BART to SFO transfer station.
> I have to agree with Colin on this point.
Please check your attributions. I didn't write the above.
Glen Elder
: In article <3vfa1k$r...@news.wco.com>, Glen Elder <el...@wco.com> wrote:
: >
: > Much of the public in the San Francisco Bay area is afraid that a
: >BART station not at the airport will end up like the BART to Oakland
: >airport shuttle bus. There is no schedual for when the shuttles arrive,
: >neighborhood is not the best. After one trip using the shuttle I now
: >drive and park at the airport.
: You can wait inside the station until the AirBART vans show up if
: you'd prefer, there's plenty of time to make the short walk outside,
: and you can see the street from inside. Although I've waited outside 5
: AM for AC Transit buses several times and never felt I was in a
: dangerous situation; and once daylight hits there is always dozens of
: people waiting for buses.
You're a braver person than I. :)
Yes, one could wait inside, if one was SURE that one could make
the bus. Of course, on one's first use of the system, how could one be
SURE? My round about point is that very poor planning went into BART
Oakland airport shuttle connection (it is not user friendly, and this is
common knowledge and one reason that most people don't use the BART to
airport shuttle and drive instead), and I have little doubt that equally
poor plannning (from the occasional rider's viewpoint) will go into a
BART San Francisco airport connection. One way around this is to have
BART actually go to SFO, rather than some distant location. The old KISS
principle.
Don Anderson
> > Colin R. Leech (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> >
> > Much of the public in the San Francisco Bay area is afraid that a
> > BART station not at the airport will end up like the BART to Oakland
> > airport shuttle bus. There is no schedual for when the shuttles arrive,
> > the waiting area is out of sight of the station attendent and there are
> > no security guards, the waiting area is not well lighted and the
> > neighborhood is not the best. After one trip using the shuttle I now
> > drive and park at the airport.
> >
Be careful, Colin !! Folks might get the idea that bad neighborhoods,
poor lighting, and no security were valid urban transit issues !!
Big Don
LOOT Rail ?? What's that ??
Silas Warner
>
> Yes, one could wait inside, if one was SURE that one could make
> the bus. Of course, on one's first use of the system, how could one be
> SURE? My round about point is that very poor planning went into BART
> Oakland airport shuttle connection (it is not user friendly, and this is
> common knowledge and one reason that most people don't use the BART to
> airport shuttle and drive instead), and I have little doubt that equally
> poor plannning (from the occasional rider's viewpoint) will go into a
> BART San Francisco airport connection. One way around this is to have
> BART actually go to SFO, rather than some distant location. The old KISS
> principle.
>
fighting over. The question centers on whether the BART station will
reside INSIDE the international terminal, fronting directly on the
central ring road, or OUTSIDE the international terminal, above the
access freeway.
My own opinion is it doesn't make one iota of difference to passengers.
An airport is a pretty large place, and all large airports have some
system of internal shuttles to get people from terminal to terminal.
If the transit station is included in the shuttle loop, its physical
location within the airport complex is mostly irrelevant.
This is a different case than Oakland, where the BART station is
several miles from the airport itself, and an extra-fare service is
required. (And as previously noted, the dedicated extra-fare service
is a rip-off: the regular transit buses are better.) At SFO, what's
being debated is political turf. (Freudian slip -- I almost put a D
on the end of that last word.)
The same goes for the Green Line in LAX. As long as the standard
parking shuttles take in the Green Line terminal, and the Green Line
station itself has some minimal accomodations for baggage, it's
probably going to be just as convenient for passengers as a station
in the airport terminal.
Look, for instance, at the Logan Airport free shuttles in Boston, as
opposed to the "central" terminal location at O'Hare. More often
than not, the O'Hare terminal requires a longer walk to my flight
than the Boston shuttle bus.
Silas Warner
Phons Bloemen
> > John Lazzaro (laz...@snap.CS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
> >
> > Yes, one could wait inside, if one was SURE that one could make
> > the bus. Of course, on one's first use of the system, how could one be
> > SURE? My round about point is that very poor planning went into BART
> > Oakland airport shuttle connection (it is not user friendly, and this is
> > common knowledge and one reason that most people don't use the BART to
> > airport shuttle and drive instead), and I have little doubt that equally
> > poor plannning (from the occasional rider's viewpoint) will go into a
> > BART San Francisco airport connection. One way around this is to have
> > BART actually go to SFO, rather than some distant location. The old KISS
> > principle.
> >
> Evidently you haven't seen the alternatives that BART and SFO are now
> fighting over. The question centers on whether the BART station will
> reside INSIDE the international terminal, fronting directly on the
> central ring road, or OUTSIDE the international terminal, above the
> access freeway.
> My own opinion is it doesn't make one iota of difference to passengers.
> An airport is a pretty large place, and all large airports have some
> system of internal shuttles to get people from terminal to terminal.
> If the transit station is included in the shuttle loop, its physical
> location within the airport complex is mostly irrelevant.
The place of the transit station on the airport IS RELEVANT.
Or do you want to take rapid transit to the airport (with 2 suitcases,
and a bag) and then transfer to some S****D mini-van just to drive
500 meters to the terminal (It may turn out to be faster to walk the
500 meters, but I think US airport planners will force you to use the van
by putting some freeway spaghetti between station and terminal).
Or do you want to use transit with the same 2 suitcases and bag to a station
inside the terminal, where a moving sidewalk to the gates is available?
Take a look at Amsterdam Schiphol airport, and the new 'schiphol plaza'
they just opened. And other European airports, in which the underground,
metro, U-bahn or train and TGV lines are integrated.
A system of vans for inter-terminal transport *STINKS*.
It is too much hassle.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phons Bloemen http://ei0.ei.ele.tue.nl/~phons
Information & Communication Theory group Eindhoven University of Technology
Word(t) Klein Zacht Raampje Perfect voor '95? Stap over! TeX & LaTeX & Linux
RLS9348
CM>You know, what I really think is that the main anxiety of BART is
really
CM>the fear that BART will bring with it crime and homeless. (And, yes, I
know
CM>the homeless and criminal population are different) I think you'll
find
CM>that there are a large number of homeless who buy their BART ticket and
CM>sleep on the trains during the day -- and get off at a station at
night.
If you use that type of logic, the not only shouldn't we extend BART, but
we should also close down the other rail service. If anything they are
easier to access because they are barrier free.
But assuming your correct, how do you suggest that we address the transit
problem to SFO or anywhere that BART goes? Or do we just give up because
we are afraid that there may be some side problem like you metioned?
CM>Since the airport is open 24 hours a day, it'll be a natural attraction
CM>for the homeless to disembark there, once there day's sleeping is over.
Why don't they use SamTrans now to get to the airport? I use the airport
5-6 times amonth, and I almost never see any homeless there. I think you
are just despertly trying to find a problem that isn't really there.
You should contact Joshua Levy, you both have a lot in common.
John Lazzaro
Cathryn Mataga <cgs_...@ccnet.com> wrote:
>You know, what I really think is that the main anxiety of BART is really
Not true, as a daily rider I don't see this very often. Some stations
do have a problem with homeless trying to live in the "outside the
paid area" part of the station, most notably Embarcadero, but most
stations in the system aren't well suited as a resting place, so its
not a general problem ...
Robert Ashcroft
Phons Bloemen <ph...@ei.ele.tue.nl> wrote:
>Or do you want to take rapid transit to the airport (with 2 suitcases,
>and a bag) and then transfer to some S****D mini-van just to drive
>500 meters to the terminal (It may turn out to be faster to walk the
>500 meters, but I think US airport planners will force you to use the van
>by putting some freeway spaghetti between station and terminal).
>Or do you want to use transit with the same 2 suitcases and bag to a station
>inside the terminal, where a moving sidewalk to the gates is available?
>
>Take a look at Amsterdam Schiphol airport, and the new 'schiphol plaza'
>they just opened. And other European airports, in which the underground,
>metro, U-bahn or train and TGV lines are integrated.
>
>A system of vans for inter-terminal transport *STINKS*.
>It is too much hassle.
A lot of US airports are too spread out to make walking from a single
transit station feasible.
I agree that transit vans suck. On the other hand, a people mover system,
leaving from the same platforms as the incoming BART/Caltrain trains,
would be acceptable.
However, I do think that as usual, things at SFO will be arranged in
the least conveniently possible way, so as to protect taxis, limos and
so forth. US transit planners can't organize their way out of a paper
bag, unfortunately.
RNA
Adrian Brandt
el...@wco.com (Glen Elder) writes:
> airport shuttle and drive instead), and I have little doubt that equally
> poor plannning (from the occasional rider's viewpoint) will go into a
> BART San Francisco airport connection. One way around this is to have
> BART actually go to SFO, rather than some distant location. The old KISS
> principle.
Yeah, well it's about a $400 million KISS. Even big spenders like Charlie
Sheen and Hugh Grant know that a KISS doesn't cost that much! (Sorry,
that was pretty stinkin' bad, I know.)
At any rate, if you like KISS so much, then you'd really like the external
intermodal BART/SFO station. It will tie all transit together at one point
and be directly connected to all the various airport terminals and job-
sites via a fast, frequent, bi-directional and free-to-ride airport-built,
owned and operated automated light rail system (ALRS). The airport
envisions that such an external station would have baggage handling
facilities and perhaps even a child care center as well... (the child
care would mainly be for the planned 43,000 airport employees; to make
it so that they are only a short ALRS ride away from their kids, and to
make them more likely to use transit on a daily basis).
Those that feel that the external intermodal joint CalTrain/BART SFO
station would have any resemblence to the Oakland airport/BART shuttle
link are clearly not very familiar with what is being proposed. There
is essentially no comparision.
Theodore Sternberg
This is an interesting theory, about BART ferrying homeless people into
the airport. It's sad but true that airports are about the only *public*
spaces you ever see large numbers of upper-middle-class white people
anymore, and I don't doubt that part of the reason is that they don't have
to deal with or look at the Lumpenproletariat there. If things got to
where they did, we'd probably see the advent of private airports, or
private-property zones in existing airports.
Don't get me wrong: I think it's important for our country to improve the
lot of those now homeless, unemployable, and alienated. But you don't
deal with these problems by spreading them to new locales (like airports).
So here's a solution: make BART tickets to the airport cost more, like
$5. Pass this money through to the airlines, which would be required to
refund it to people holding airline tickets. And for the related problem
of people using BART as their bedroom: program the computers that control
the turnstyles to note the amount of time a person has spent on board,
and then charge accordingly, so that a trip from Powell Street to
Montgomery Street via Concord and Fremont would cost alot more than $0.80.
(I realize, though, that this kind of sophisticated upgrade could cost
millions of dollars to program :^) )
Ted Sternberg
San Jose, CA
,__0
_-\_<,
___~*: (*)/'(*)
'/|~~\
Kirk Schneider
: The reason you don't see many of the homeless there is because the
: airports have security people who move them out when they cause problems.
Why is it that airports seem to be able to remove bums but whenever this
is tried at train or bus stations there is a lawsuit ? Maybe the A.C.L.U.
lawyers don't ride buses and trains ? I'm afraid that the answer is that
trains and buses are not used by the middle class so security is seen as
less importatnt. The middle and upper classes fly so the airports are the
only public places that are still relatively civilized. Other public
places have largely been abandoned by the middle class.
Cathryn Mataga
>
> cgs_...@ccnet.com (Cathryn Mataga) posted:
>
>really
>CM>the fear that BART will bring with it crime and homeless. (And, yes, I
>know
>CM>the homeless and criminal population are different) I think you'll
>find
>CM>that there are a large number of homeless who buy their BART ticket and
>CM>sleep on the trains during the day -- and get off at a station at
>night.
>
>If you use that type of logic, the not only shouldn't we extend BART, but
>we should also close down the other rail service. If anything they are
>easier to access because they are barrier free.
>
>But assuming your correct, how do you suggest that we address the transit
>problem to SFO or anywhere that BART goes? Or do we just give up because
>we are afraid that there may be some side problem like you metioned?
>
>CM>Since the airport is open 24 hours a day, it'll be a natural attraction
>CM>for the homeless to disembark there, once there day's sleeping is over.
>
>Why don't they use SamTrans now to get to the airport? I use the airport
>5-6 times amonth, and I almost never see any homeless there. I think you
>are just despertly trying to find a problem that isn't really there.
>
>You should contact Joshua Levy, you both have a lot in common.
>
>Richard L Silver
>San Mateo County, CA
>415-368-7112
Personally, I think what attracts homeless to BART is the way tickets
are taken. You can get on BART, and stay in the system all day. Only
one ticket is required to get in, and if you're sneaky, you can slip out
at night at a deserted statation. The cars are somewhat comfortable,
air-conditioned on hot days, and sleeping on them is legal. My take on
the situation is that homeless don't transit somewhere as a destination,
but that they perfer to remain on a system. At night, they get off at a
station where they can find someplace safe to hang out or beg at night.
Since I've never been on SamTrans I can't speak from experience, I'm an
East Bay person, but perhaps the ticketing is done different. Like, can
you remain on a SamTran after the train reaches its destination.
If the stations aren't inside the ticketed area, I think, the trains
would be far less useful for someone looking for a warm place off the
streets. A homeless person would need to purchase many SamTrans tickets
during the day. Not something they could afford.
Btw, I am mostly indifferent towards extending BART to SFO. I mean, the
Government drops huge amounts of money on other massive projects, so why
not a BART extension. And you know, if SFO becomes a homeless Mecca, well,
maybe that would reduce the homeless population here in Berkeley, so I
suppose I might benefit by slightly less panhandling.
Obviously the transit system can't be expected to solve the homeless
problem. I mean, I appreciate that some people are homeless because of
a bad break in life and don't have anywhere to go. I don't think that
there's any amount of money or government program that can solve this.
But, I don't think that the transit system can shut its eyes and pretend
that the homeless or criminals don't exist. That's just not reality.
When these systems are built, I think the issue of homeless spreading to
new neighborhoods or public places should be considered part of their
'environmental impact.'
Eric Rosenberg
: This is an interesting theory, about BART ferrying homeless people into
: the airport. It's sad but true that airports are about the only *public*
: spaces you ever see large numbers of upper-middle-class white people
: anymore, and I don't doubt that part of the reason is that they don't have
: to deal with or look at the Lumpenproletariat there. If things got to
: where they did, we'd probably see the advent of private airports, or
: private-property zones in existing airports.
You mean the white upper-middle-class people hang out at airports? I
thought they went there to board airplanes. Yes lets all go hang out at
the airport to get away from the poor trash out there, after all,
everyone knows that there are so many good places to eat, such good
entertainment, etc. Maybe the reason you don't see too many lower income
people at airports is because they can't afford to fly.
When was the last time you were in one of the major shopping malls. Yes
they are privately owned, but open to the public. Some of them have
problems, but most of the ones I have seen lately have been caused by the
kids of upper-middle-class white parents. No I haven't been to Eastridge
in a while.
In Santa Clara County, some of the worst vandalism, not graffitti, but
vandalism that causes major damage, has historically been in the
primarily upper-middle-class neighbor hoods. (Almaden Valley/Blossom
Valley). The graffitti is usually worse in areas where there is large
quantities of gang activity.
: Don't get me wrong: I think it's important for our country to improve the
: lot of those now homeless, unemployable, and alienated. But you don't
: deal with these problems by spreading them to new locales (like airports).
The reason you don't see many of the homeless there is because the
airports have security people who move them out when they cause problems.
: So here's a solution: make BART tickets to the airport cost more, like
: $5. Pass this money through to the airlines, which would be required to
: refund it to people holding airline tickets. And for the related problem
: of people using BART as their bedroom: program the computers that control
: the turnstyles to note the amount of time a person has spent on board,
: and then charge accordingly, so that a trip from Powell Street to
: Montgomery Street via Concord and Fremont would cost alot more than $0.80.
: (I realize, though, that this kind of sophisticated upgrade could cost
: millions of dollars to program :^) )
The fare will be higher, if I recall right, there is going to be a
surcharge for crossing the San Mateo County line, after all, there
already is one for the Daily City Station.
While we're at it let's place toll gates on all the doors, say charge
everyone $5 just to enter the airport, that ought to keep them out too.
After all, there are more ways than just BART that will be going into the
airport.
San Jose Int. Airp. is fairily eccessible to people on buses (even a free
one), or by walking, I don't see that many homeless hanging out there.
--
Eric Rosenberg
Language is a city to the building of which every human being brought a stone.
Mark Twain
Lou Schneider
: If things got to
: where they did, we'd probably see the advent of private airports, or
: private-property zones in existing airports.
When I flew through Chicago-O'Hare last month, there were many promanent
signs posted, saying the terminal was off limits between (I think) 10 pm
and 6 AM, except to employees and persons holding valid airline tickets.
I was on a late flight with a short transfer, so I didn't have much time
for sightseeing. But I don't remember seeing anyone meeting passengers
at the gate.
Lou Schneider
lo...@crl.com
Don Anderson
> [...]
> When was the last time you were in one of the major shopping malls. Yes
> they are privately owned, but open to the public. Some of them have
> problems, but most of the ones I have seen lately have been caused by the
> kids of upper-middle-class white parents. [...]
Like the black gang members that recently shot it out *INSIDE* the
Tacoma Mall (of course that's Tacoma and nobody got hit so it didn't get
much press)
And of course, in Trumbull, CT, where so many inner city youths over-ran
a suburban mall, having arrived there from Hartford on the
*LOOT*-transit, that the mall operators tried to get the transit route
deleted. (see: The Seattle Times, Sept 19, 1994, "Plan to bar city buses
from suburban mall called racist")
Big Don
No *LOOT*-Rail !!
Colin R. Leech
In a previous message, cgs_...@ccnet.com (Cathryn Mataga) wrote:
>You know, what I really think is that the main anxiety of BART is really
>the fear that BART will bring with it crime and homeless.
You clearly haven't been reading misc.transport.urban-transit. We've been
through this "Loot rail" debate before, and have defeated every argument
that BigDon put forward. Samples:
- How do you carry a tv set home on the bus inconspicuously?
It's a lot easier in a car.
- How do you hide in a transit system? You're a bit of a captive for the
police to track down, standing in a rapid transit station or at a bus
stop waiting for the next train or bus to show up.
- It's a lot easier to hotwire a car for a joyride out to the suburbs to
rip somebody off than to take a two hour bus ride.
>I think you'll find
>that there are a large number of homeless who buy their BART ticket and
>sleep on the trains during the day -- and get off at a station at night.
Oh? Have you seen them? If they are causing a disturbance, the security
people will kick them out. If they're just sitting on the seat next to
you, how do you know they're homeless, and what difference does it make
to you anyway?
>Since the airport is open 24 hours a day, it'll be a natural attraction
>for the homeless to disembark there, once there day's sleeping is over.
>To panhandle, legally of course, with people at the airport.
Airports being semi-private property, vagrants and beggars are quickly
evicted by the security staff. Unfortunately, some US judge interpreted
"individual rights" in a way that prevents police from doing the same thing
in downtown railroad stations. Not fair, but that's the way it is.
Besides, for someone without money, it would be a lot cheaper to bus a
ticket for the long bus ride to the airport than to pay the premium for
faster BART service.
Colin R. Leech
In a previous message, r...@status.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote:
>A lot of US airports are too spread out to make walking from a single
>transit station feasible.
Yes. That's why shuttles and people movers between the terminals are
necessary. There are different levels of utility. Cramped shuttle buses
on congested roadways are inconvenient. Spacious low floor buses on separate
roads would be very convenient (not that I can think of any ...). Moving
sidewalks may or may not be convenient depending on factors like distance.
Similarly monorails or LRT shuttles or whatever technology may or may not
be useful depending on how they interface with the terminals, other rapid
transit lines, etc.
At SFO, my understanding is that the largest markets for transit passengers
would be:
1. the United maintenance base (not near the terminals, but
thousands of daily commuters)
2. business people on short flights who would not have a lot of luggage
>I agree that transit vans suck. On the other hand, a people mover system,
>leaving from the same platforms as the incoming BART/Caltrain trains,
>would be acceptable.
>
>However, I do think that as usual, things at SFO will be arranged in
>the least conveniently possible way, so as to protect taxis, limos and
>so forth. US transit planners can't organize their way out of a paper
>bag, unfortunately.
The airports earn huge revenue from parking charges and taxi/limo licencing
fees. What's their incentive to allow transit to carry people into the
airport for a couple of dollars a ride at the expense of these other services?
Colin R. Leech
In a previous message, ster...@haas.berkeley.edu (Theodore Sternberg) wrote:
>This is an interesting theory, about BART ferrying homeless people into
>the airport.
Interesting, but what proof is there? Is there any evidence that subways
are ferrying homeless people into Washington National Airport, O'Hare,
Cleveland, or Atlanta? I haven't seen any.
>So here's a solution: make BART tickets to the airport cost more, like
>$5. Pass this money through to the airlines, which would be required to
>refund it to people holding airline tickets.
So the thousands of daily commuters working at the United maintenance base
get screwed?
> And for the related problem
>of people using BART as their bedroom: program the computers that control
>the turnstyles to note the amount of time a person has spent on board,
>and then charge accordingly, so that a trip from Powell Street to
>Montgomery Street via Concord and Fremont would cost alot more than $0.80.
I think the Washington Metro has a "timeout" feature on tickets, right?
(This is necessary because of the peak/offpeak fare differentials.) If
you take too long (several hours) to make a trip, the turnstile rejects
your fare card.
Don Anderson
> Eric Rosenberg (gim...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : The reason you don't see many of the homeless there is because the
> : airports have security people who move them out when they cause problems.
>
> Why is it that airports seem to be able to remove bums but whenever this
> is tried at train or bus stations there is a lawsuit ? Maybe the A.C.L.U.
> lawyers don't ride buses and trains ? I'm afraid that the answer is that
> trains and buses are not used by the middle class so security is seen as
> less importatnt. The middle and upper classes fly so the airports are the
> only public places that are still relatively civilized. Other public
> places have largely been abandoned by the middle class.
>
>
>
Uh...Does any of this sound familiar??! Could you have possibly heard
any such comments before?
Big Don
No *LOOT*-Rail or Distributed Sect_8 !!
Don Littlefield
>el...@wco.com (Glen Elder) writes:
>> airport shuttle and drive instead), and I have little doubt that equally
>> poor plannning (from the occasional rider's viewpoint) will go into a
>> BART San Francisco airport connection. One way around this is to have
>> BART actually go to SFO, rather than some distant location. The old KISS
>> principle.
>At any rate, if you like KISS so much, then you'd really like the external
>intermodal BART/SFO station. It will tie all transit together at one point
>and be directly connected to all the various airport terminals and job-
>sites via a fast, frequent, bi-directional and free-to-ride airport-built,
>owned and operated automated light rail system (ALRS).
That's exactly the reason people drive. First you take your bags and
kids and drive to one public transit, unload, haul to the ramp, ride,
unload, move to another public transit system, load, unload, etc. etc.
BART should go into the airport and make it simple for those having
access to BART. Or, let the public check their kids, err bags, at the
first station! Sounds like SFO is planning a DIA baggage system.
Don Littlefield
RLS9348
a...@ntmtv.com (Adrian Brandt) wrote:
AB> then you'd really like the external
AB>intermodal BART/SFO station. It will tie all transit together at one
point
AB>and be directly connected to all the various airport terminals and job-
AB>sites via a fast, frequent, bi-directional and free-to-ride
airport-built,
AB>owned and operated automated light rail system (ALRS).
DL>That's exactly the reason people drive. First you take your bags and
DL>kids and drive to one public transit, unload, haul to the ramp, ride,
DL>unload, move to another public transit system, load, unload, etc. etc.
And how does driving make it any easier? You still have to move you bags,
kids etc from the car to the termininal to the airplane etc. And then what
do you do with the car? Pay $15 a day parking fee? And for how many days?
That sure sounds like fun!
And why is it any harder moving kids through transit to the airport than
say through a shopping mall?
With all due respect to DL and all the others of you that keep bring up
the "carrying your bags around the airport" problem as a reason why people
will not use transit...well your just plan wrong!!!
People who travel on a frequent bases know how to travel properly i.e.
travel lightly. The people with a dozen bags are usually the one that
travel once every 5 years. They don't know how to travel properly because
they're not frequent travelers. And isn't it the frequent traveler that
we're trying to attract to use transit to/from SFO?
Go to the airport some Friday or Sunday when it's the busiest. You'll see
A LOT of people with kids and bags etc getting on/ off buses, suttles etc.
Building an intermodel transit station west of 101 to serve SFO will only
make getting to/from SFO easier thereby attracting more transit users.
DL>BART should go into the airport and make it simple for those having
DL>access to BART.
Perhaps, that is a good idea, but it would only solve part of the problem.
An intermodel station west of 101 would insure that everybody coming from
every direction would have easy airport access.
Richard L Silver
San Mateo County, Ca
415-368-7112
Don Littlefield
>ltlf...@ccnet.com (Don Littlefield)
>a...@ntmtv.com (Adrian Brandt) wrote:
>AB> then you'd really like the external ntermodal BART/SFO station. It will tie all transit together at one
>DL>That's exactly the reason people drive. First you take your bags and
>DL>kids and drive to one public transit, unload, haul to the ramp, ride,
>DL>unload, move to another public transit system, load, unload, etc. etc.
>And how does driving make it any easier?
Load the car at home. Drive direct to the airport curbside check-in.
Dump bags, wifey, kiddies. Park car. The old man gets at least 10
minutes peace and quiet this method hunting for parking, walking back
to family. The time involved is probably 50% less than public
transit. The Number of connections/transitions is at least 50% less
than the best public transit system and from most neighborhoods
probably 66% to 75% fewer transitions.
>People who travel on a frequent bases know how to travel properly i.e.
>travel lightly. The people with a dozen bags are usually the one that
>travel once every 5 years. They don't know how to travel properly because
>they're not frequent travelers. And isn't it the frequent traveler that
>we're trying to attract to use transit to/from SFO?
Having travelled better than 3 million miles, I can personally tell
you that "transitions" are what put me in a car. Even direct public
transit would be 2nd choice if it requires substantially more clock
time desk to gate. If it is business, and they're paying, the parking
tab is insignificant. If a company required I ride public transit,
I'd tell them to "$%^# - off". A frequent traveler looks at time it
takes, reliability, exposure to the elements, noise, public menace,
number of disruptions (transition from one thing to another),
proximate space for luggage stowage at feet, climate control (heat in
winter, ac in summer), etc. A car may cost more but it ranks well on
all those items. I cannot imagine riding Muni, AC Transit, or Cal
Train at any time to go to SFO with a schedule to keep.
>DL>BART should go into the airport and make it simple for those having
>DL>access to BART.
BART is possibility providing they let me park my car at BART for
3-4 day trips and then only if it goes into the airport and is
convenient to the major airlines and I can keep my bag(s) next to me
on the seat while on BART.
>Perhaps, that is a good idea, but it would only solve part of the problem.
>An intermodel station west of 101 would insure that everybody coming from
>every direction would have easy airport access.
I think an intermodal station would fail. BART would be the major
loser. The other forms of transit wouldn't get an increase in
ridership (probably even fewer because of the west 101 locale) and the
public would be further inconvenienced from not having BART into the
airport.
Sounds to me like AC Transit, CalTrain, Muni, Limo Companies are
lobbying hard to keep BART out of SFO. Or, maybe there's a piece of
real estate soimeone is looking to develop and revenue tax.
Don't stop one GREAT THING (BART into SFO) by trying to appease every
tom, dick and harry that walks in the door.
Adrian Brandt
That's not what the ridership data in the BART/SFO DEIR/DEIS says.
Net new daily transit trips for external intermodal vs. internal
are the same.
> BART would be the major loser.
Hardly. Whether BART's SFO station is east or west of Highway 101, most
users will still have to transfer to the airport's ALRS (automated light
rail system) to access their final airport destination.
The question becomes, how do you justify spending anywhere from $200 to
$400 million more just to afford BART passengers the priveledge of
transferring to the airport ALRS on the east (airport) side of Highway
101?
In all the thousands of pages of reports and studies produced on BART/SFO
thusfar, a satisfactory answer to that question is not to be found.
The Senator Kopp, the BART Board, and more recently, SF mayoral candidate
Willie Brown, are pushing the internal SFO station for political reasons.
Their reasoning and arguments are primarily emotional, not factual. They
do not cite any cost-benefit analyses or hard facts and figures to back
their position. When pushed, they like to fall back on the "it's the
will of the people" stuff. Well, the people (SF voters) got to vote on
an advisory measure that Senator Kopp drafted and qualified for the SF
ballot. It did not contain any cost/benefit or alternatives analysis or
any hard facts and figures. Furthermore, it did not discuss project
cost at all, and it is true that San Francisco isn't paying a nickel of
the BART/SFO extension. Ask the people if they'd like to drive a Ferrari
and most would say yes. Then show them how much it will cost them, show
them that there are far more practical and less expensive alternatives, and
maybe, just maybe, you might get a different answer.
> The other forms of transit wouldn't get an increase in ridership
> (probably even fewer because of the west 101 locale) and the public
> would be further inconvenienced from not having BART into the airport.
No. The ridership data in the BART/SFO DEIR/DEIS say you're all wrong.
Instead of offering arm-chair speculation on stuff that has been studied
so extensively, you'd be well-served to read up on a few things first.
> Sounds to me like AC Transit, CalTrain, Muni, Limo Companies are
> lobbying hard to keep BART out of SFO. Or, maybe there's a piece of
> real estate soimeone is looking to develop and revenue tax.
AC Transit? Muni? I'd be the first to say it if I thought this was
even possibly true. I also would really wish CalTrain would lobby
hard to keep BART out of SFO. Not for the reasons you might think,
however. The BART into SFO alternatives aim to deny CalTrain equal
access to the airport. They envision CalTrain riders transferring to
a BART train in Millbrae for a one-stop ride into the airport, and then
transferring a second time to the airport's ALRS at BART's internal SFO
station. Since 2/3 of the airport's current 31,000 (soon to rise to
over 40,000) airport employees live south of SFO (CalTrain country),
this will impose a cumbersome double transfer on the biggest potential
day-in, day-out group of transit users to the airport.
While the transfer "churn" of all those CalTrain riders transferring
to BART to get into SFO boosts the gross new transit boarding count,
the internal BART/SFO station offers little more than a far higher
price tag. It sounds good on paper, but the benefits don't "pencil
out". The external intermodal station would bring all rail transit
service (BART, CalTrain and future intercity and high speed rail
services) at a single station. The airport has said baggage handling
would be provided at such a station. The airport-built, owned and
operated ALRS would run 24 hrs/day, 365 days/year. It would provide
high-frequency, bi-directional service (toward the terminals or toward
the long term parking and the huge United Airlines maintenance facility).
The ALRS would be able to deliver all people arriving via transit as
closely as possible to all airport destinations (terminals, facilities
and job sites).
> Don't stop one GREAT THING (BART into SFO) by trying to appease every
> tom, dick and harry that walks in the door.
Hey, what's wrong with appeasing them all--if you can? Especially if it
will cost less taxpayer money. If you spread the $1.3 billion cost of
BART/SFO Alt. 6 (internal) across every man, woman and child in the US,
it comes up to about $5.20 each. At a cost like that, we had better
be damn sure it's, as you say, "one GREAT THING". As a long-time transit
advocate/activist, I can say based my study of the issue, the
substantially less costly external intermodal station makes a lot more
sense.
If you asked me to pretend I was charged with ensuring BART had the best
possible odds of pushing its way further down the Peninsula, killing the
CalTrain downtown extension (by siphoning off riders and limited regional
transit funding) and ultimately having an excellent chance of replacing
CalTrain, I'd say go for Alternative 6 with the Millbrae BART/CalTrain
transfer station. It even includes a "tailtrack" that extends well into
Burlingame along the CalTrain right of way. Some observers have suggested
that BART wants to get to Millbrae (south of SFO along the CalTrain right
of way) even more than it wants to get to SFO. Of course, BART can't come
out and say this, but it's very plausible scenario given statements made
by Senator Kopp and various BART representatives, the chief proponents of
Alt. 6.
Don Littlefield
>ltlf...@ccnet.com (Don Littlefield) writes:
>> I think an intermodal station would fail.
>That's not what the ridership data in the BART/SFO DEIR/DEIS says.
>> BART would be the major loser.
>Hardly.
>> The other forms of transit wouldn't get an increase in ridership
>No. The ridership data in the BART/SFO DEIR/DEIS say you're all wrong.
>Instead of offering arm-chair speculation on stuff that has been studied
>> Don't stop one GREAT THING (BART into SFO) by trying to appease every
>> tom, dick and harry that walks in the door.
>Hey, what's wrong with appeasing them all--if you can?
I appreciate that these projects are complex and that answers are not
often clear, especially on matters where government, business and the
public intersect. I also recognize that you are well versed and seem
to have expertise about much of the substance behind the intermodal
terminal. I, on the other hand, am simply a user of SFO. I do not
know dier from deis. But, I would caution the folks involved to
design a system in which the convenience to the user is clearly
improved. Adding another link in the chain to get somewhere carries
with it enormous intangible built-in "difficulty of ridership" costs.
It may be that an intermodal terminal is great for the workers at SFO
to get around. It just may not be so great for passengers. Who's
your market?
From a passenger viewpoint, and the one with the luggage and the kids,
an intermodal terminal simply doesn't seem efficient to me and doesn't
make me want to hop on BART or any other mode to go to SFO.
BART into the airport DOES seem to me to offer an more attractive
method of getting to the airport and something I would consider using.
Remember that Ford Motor Co. studied and researched the market
thoroughly before designing and building the EDSEL. But, all the
studies in the world couldn't get enought people to buy it. While I
am sure an intermodal terminal on paper would be a neat idea, I don't
think it would be attractive -- to passengers -- coming and going at
SFO.
It's been fun, I'll let you go back to doing your job. End of my
posts.
Don Littlefield
Tom Wetzel
---
Reports in yesterday's papers on the CA State Senate Transportation Comm.
hearings on the MTA. Apparently most of the commentary was directed against
the MTA's management of its contractors on the subway construction project.
For example, why did the MTA fire Shea but not the contractor hired to
oversee Shea (Dillingham)? The MTA has not done a particularly good job
of running this project, and thus deserves this sort of criticism.
Unfortunately it also gives ammunition to the opponents of rail transit.
The NAACP legal defense fund, which is suing the MTA to block the most
recent fare increase along with LCSC, on civil rights grounds,
didn't limit itself to criticizing Metrolink funding (MTA is a member
of Metrolink) or Red Line construction but also criticized the Blue Line.
They argued that the amount of subsidy per ride was so much greater than
the bus system that they could have hired stretch limos for the riders.
They reiterated their argument, which is part of their lawsuit, that
the MTA's rail construction program is discriminatory in that it provides
a greater subsidy for higher-income segmments of society. The NAACP and
Tom Hayden argued that the funds should go into a bus-only system rather
than rail construction.
The NAACP's position strikes me as subject to the following counterarguments:
(1) The difference between the level of cost recovery on the Blue Line and
the bus system is primarily due to the very high level of police presence.
Without that, the fare recovery rate is reportedly in the 33-37% range,
which is similar to the bus system. The fact that the Blue Line is an
isolated line, and not part of a larger network of light rail lines, also
increases its per ride costs since the overhead for the line (such as
the costs of running a maintenance shop) is spread over a smaller ridership
base. Build a larger network, and you'd see the costs per ride decrease.
(2) NAACP/LCSC are hypocritical in taking their case against the "elitist"
nature of the MTA's program to the elitist court system. Why don't they
take it to the voters? The problem here is the following. The vote for
transit taxes in the early 1980s was based on a coalition of groups that
were interested in a variety of things: (a) people who wanted a different
type of system than the slow-speed bus system, that is, the vision provided
by the prospects of rapid transit, (b) the existing bus riders and their
supporters who wanted lower bus fares and expanded bus service, and (c)
environmentalists who want to encourage people to rely less on cars.
Given the long history of a failure to get public tax support for transit
in LA, the effort to improve transit requires this sort of coalition.
By driving a wedge between the supporters of improvements for the current
bus riders, and the advocates of rapid transit who want a system with broader
potential ridership appeal, NAACP/LCSC/Hayden are undermining the prospects
of public transit in the LA area. Public transit in general, not just
rapid transit. There is no evidence that a majority would vote to increase
tax funding just to provide for the bus system, a system that is used
overwhelmingly by the working poor. The working poor vote in very small numbers
and thus have little political clout. A successful political approach to
transit improvements must assemble a broad-based coalition, and this means
it must provide prospective benefits for a broad segment of society.
(3) The NAACP case against the MTA is self-contradictory. If the MTA is able
to make the transit system more appealing, by providing faster service
and/or markedly lower fares, it will tend to break out of its main
ridership base (the working poor) and attract those segments of the workforce
who have higher
incomes, thus increasing the average income of the ridership. Thus insofar as
the MTA is successful it would be categorized as "discriminatory"
by the NAACP's logic. So, the only way the MTA can fail to be "discriminatory"
is by providing a miserable service that only those with absolutely no other
options would use. So, the MTA can only succeed by failing.
Tom Wetzel
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
thomas...@eng.sun.com
TDHorton
rail lines (not the Metrolink lines) pass through mostly lower-income
minority areas. MTA's contribution to Metrolink is a small part of its
overall budget, and has nothing to do with Red Line, Blue Line, etc. I
can't quite figure out how the lawsuit supports its logic.