Comments on: East Bay, Starved for Transit Funds, Considers Postponing BRT Project

By: Matt Fisher

Matt Fisher — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:47:22 +0000

I want to make clear something: BRT in any form, including what AC Transit proposes, is more cost effective than the silly OAC project. Use the money that will be spent on something not really needed for BRT. This is one of the few cases where BRT can be a better mode than rail.

By: Matt Fisher

Matt Fisher — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:15:35 +0000

Once again, to clarify, I am not advocating BRT as a substitute. But in the case of Oakland, LRT is just too expensive. ;( BRT is a legitimate solution there. There is no reason to go into “mode wars”. BRT is “better than nothing”. Therefore, I support AC Transit’s BRT plan.

By: Matt Fisher

Matt Fisher — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:09:42 +0000

Okay, I’m not a big fan of BRT, but in this case, BRT is just fine. And since the East Bay is literally broke, BRT is the best they can do. It can attract a lot, like in Ottawa or Curitiba or Bogota. And someday, it will be rail. I disagree that BRT is “just like rail, but cheaper”. However, dedicated lanes are necessary, and rail is expensive. :(

By: Axed

Axed — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:57:21 +0000

There’s political movement towards axing this project. Oakland city council has requested that MTC look at getting grant money spent elsewhere. Another meeting is coming October 7th that could be key. I agree with Mike that AC Transit could do a lot to cut their operating costs. I’m not familiar with the board structure, but they need to more accountable and do their jobs. TDA audits and withholdings are at least a worthwhile sanity check.

By: political_incorrectness

political_incorrectness — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:29:00 +0000

The OAC just need to be axed. 522 million bucks for three miles is a waste of money. I’d get someone at the national level to cut the $70 million dollar earmark from the stimulus package. That could be better used for AC’s BRT, producing a few long term jobs, short term construction jobs, and benefiting more of the public!

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:16:32 +0000

First, the OAC is of course a total misdesign and should not be built. Second, while I as a rider would like wholesale replacement of Board and misManagement, the service cuts are not acceptable. Delaying the BRT project is a small price to pay for retaining the already skeletal service AC provides. I should note that several speakers at the BOD mtg. Friday lamented that BRT was the only marquee transit project in the East Bay and should be supported because the East Bay deserved something. In my view this is not a valid reason to spend millions on a badly thought out bus line. As a regular rider of the 1/1R, I don’t need TVMs, “stations,” or dedicated lanes so much as assurance the buses will run period. Last night, returning from the AC BOD mtg. the trip was very fast after a long wait–making the trip 3 minutes faster but not more frequent is pointless.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:05:13 +0000

That can't possibly be the least expensive elevated solution they could find. Aerobus (don't know if they are still in business) lists Monorail as $75m-$100m a mile, and this seems to be monorail. The Aerobus technology was listed as $15m-$30m/mile, which would leave enough for two air terminal connections, an intermediate station or two, Coliseum BART and Coliseum Amtrak. The major perceived disadvantage of Aerobus is the 30mph speed (hence the "bus" even if its technically elevated light rail), but the OAC is no faster than that.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:58:19 +0000

leaving aside OAC for the moment, AC would not be facing a deficit of this magnitude if it were not for the district’s soaring operating cost rates. Years of poor management by Fernandez and the Board (i.e., failure to play the appropriate role of “management” in labor negotiations) have left AC with an astronomically high cost structure and pathetically poor productivity. Note that these “state funds” that AC is not receiving this year are only a very small slice of the operating subsidy, and they are so volatile from year to year that no sane manager would ever build a budget that relied upon them.

By: Winston

Winston — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:57:32 +0000

Just to add more to the criticism of the OAC, here’s a link to a site that proposes a far more sensible alternative to the OAC supported by most bay area transit activists.

http://oaklandairportconnector.com/rapid-bart-alternative/

By: Boondogglin'

Boondogglin' — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:26:03 +0000

I don’t know why EB congressional reps don’t stand up against this. These are dollars that could be going to a host of other transport projects around Berkeley, Oakland, Alameda, and San Leandro that would provide much better ROI. One has only to look at how badly BART missed the mark with the SFO connection that they barely even run anymore to see where this project is going. What a travesty! The impact on congestion is negligeable b/c of the low volumes and the fact that peak airport hours don’t actually coincide that closely with peak freeway hours. BART could use this money for a host of station improvements in DTO, or it could go to San Pablo BRT, or to a BRT line out to East Oakland, or to accelerate the much need Telegraph BRT. For the total bill on the OAC, you could probably build most of a light rail line from OAK up 73rd to the mall. MTC needs to get a grip.