More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget!
On Tuesday, the suddenly controversial (there's a kicker) Oakland BART Airport connector project was approved for $70 million from the board of commissioners of the Port of Oakland, according to the Oakland Tribune.
The plan, which has ballooned to $522 million over the three decades of discussion, finally looks like it's on the way toward reality. Perhaps the days of $30 cab rides to the airport from Lake Merritt will end. And to put a fine point on it, a cab ride to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) from Lake Merritt costs me $40; just $10 more!
Taking BART means waiting for the crowded Oakland Airport bus, a time cost I'm tired of paying. Meanwhile I can take BART to SFO for $6 and I'm placed right in the terminal system; I can take the people mover or walk to my gate from there.
While the connector plan is hated by some, it's a much needed transportation service improvement for an airport that needs a competitive shot in the arm. For some weird reason, the Port's PR person pointed to projected vehicle emissions reductions, but that's not the real issue for me. This is one more step in improving the quality of life in Oakland and removing the "second class" tag from it.
I feel as if there's a wee battle between those who want to improve Oakland and really make it into a city, versus those who'd rather keep it as a small, crime-plagued hamlet. Why they want this is curious to me. They oppose keeping the A's, high rise buildings where we need them, and almost any other large scale project. Thinking small isn't the best way to make a city.
Comments
One, it isn't a direct BART connection the way the SFO access is. It's another line. So you'll get off BART, go downstairs and then get on another system. How is that any different from the bus?
Two, if BART is losing money on the SFO direct line, how do you see this as any better? Wouldn't it be better to wait and do it right if we're going to lose money either way? And what about spending that money on the existing system - which could seriously use some work and certain departments could definitely use training. (ie police)
If the BRT option was given thought, I would think it would be better than the existing AirBart (BUS) system, plus it would be the same connection as the proposed OAC. Plus, it would cost SIGNIFICANTLY less to implement. If they're not going to make it a direct line - like SFO - then I'd still probably take a taxi. Especially considering the cost. But then it only costs me $15 to take a taxi to the airport... At $12 just for the OAC, it makes ZERO financial sense.
Joanna
Yes it will cost a lot of money and yes BART will lose money on the service, but that is going to happen with the OAC anyways, especially at the price they want to charge.
I actually don't think BRT (the dedicated lane portion) to OAK would be that much of an improvement, simply because I don't see the problem with the current service as being stuck in traffic. Some simple changes to the existing system (using BART cards), and implementing some BRT-type technologies like priority traffic signaling would go a long way for a lot cheaper than the OAC or BRT.
Then in a decade or two, BART could come back and do it right, like they did at SFO.
Did you know that traffic has been going down, EVERY YEAR, for the last Seven (7) years?
Are we scraping for bones before the patient dies?
Is it irrelevant that nobody presented Credible data on traffic?
"They" only said that it would carry 2,000 passenger per year MORE than the maximum ever carried by SFO. Is that credible?
Can I interest you on some beach front property in Florida?