<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Advocates Upset Stim Money Could Still Fund Oakland Airport Connector</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/24/advocates-upset-stim-money-could-still-fund-oakland-airport-connector/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/24/advocates-upset-stim-money-could-still-fund-oakland-airport-connector/</link>
	<description>Covering San Francisco&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:38:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: theo</title>
		<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/24/advocates-upset-stim-money-could-still-fund-oakland-airport-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-3836</link>
		<dc:creator>theo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1603#comment-3836</guid>
		<description>bikerider: I think you misunderstood me. 

I was unclear about the BRT proposal because it really seems worse than the no-build alternative. It adds extra stops to the existing slow bus service. I don&#039;t see how signal prioritization and exclusive lanes (on a nearly empty expressway) would make up for that.

I&#039;m also skeptical that an electric PeopleMover with no operator will have higher operating costs than a diesel shuttle bus fleet with drivers. And that depreciation is a problem -- a public private partnership should be able to deduct it from taxes, and wear from the BRT buses would also depreciate the value of Hegenberger Rd.

Well, it passed anyway. So Oakland will have a first class airport connector to a third class airport. I for one will be more likely to use OAK once it&#039;s built.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>bikerider: I think you misunderstood me. </p>
<p>I was unclear about the BRT proposal because it really seems worse than the no-build alternative. It adds extra stops to the existing slow bus service. I don&#8217;t see how signal prioritization and exclusive lanes (on a nearly empty expressway) would make up for that.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m also skeptical that an electric PeopleMover with no operator will have higher operating costs than a diesel shuttle bus fleet with drivers. And that depreciation is a problem &#8212; a public private partnership should be able to deduct it from taxes, and wear from the BRT buses would also depreciate the value of Hegenberger Rd.</p>
<p>Well, it passed anyway. So Oakland will have a first class airport connector to a third class airport. I for one will be more likely to use OAK once it&#8217;s built.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bikerider</title>
		<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/24/advocates-upset-stim-money-could-still-fund-oakland-airport-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-3812</link>
		<dc:creator>bikerider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:31:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1603#comment-3812</guid>
		<description>Theo: you don&#039;t understand the &quot;BRT proposal&quot;, but made up your mind against it anyway?

The BRT proposal is for exclusive transit-only lanes with signal prioritization. In terms of door-door travel time, it is actually as fast (if not faster) than the 1/2 BILLION PeopleMover(tm) because it drops passengers directly where they need to go (i.e. front entrance of the terminals, rental areas, etc). 

Incidentally, Rentschler&#039;s comments (as usual) are appalling. The higher operating and depreciation costs of the PeopleMover precludes considering this as any kind of infrastructure &quot;investment&quot;. More properly should be termed &quot;liability&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Theo: you don&#8217;t understand the &#8220;BRT proposal&#8221;, but made up your mind against it anyway?</p>
<p>The BRT proposal is for exclusive transit-only lanes with signal prioritization. In terms of door-door travel time, it is actually as fast (if not faster) than the 1/2 BILLION PeopleMover(tm) because it drops passengers directly where they need to go (i.e. front entrance of the terminals, rental areas, etc). </p>
<p>Incidentally, Rentschler&#8217;s comments (as usual) are appalling. The higher operating and depreciation costs of the PeopleMover precludes considering this as any kind of infrastructure &#8220;investment&#8221;. More properly should be termed &#8220;liability&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: theo</title>
		<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/24/advocates-upset-stim-money-could-still-fund-oakland-airport-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-3811</link>
		<dc:creator>theo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1603#comment-3811</guid>
		<description>The point of the Oakland airport connector is to save the airport, which is struggling and losing carriers to SFO. The biggest problem with OAK is poor transit connectivity.

If something isn&#039;t built soon, the slow decline of OAK will cost the port of Oakland a lot more than not building the connector will save AC transit.

I don&#039;t understand this &quot;BRT proposal.&quot;

AirBART is already non-stop service between BART and the airport, and there&#039;s rarely traffic in the airport area. Yet it&#039;s still slow, uncomfortable, and unreliable.

Is the plan to add more stops to AirBART and maybe add some signal priority to offset the delay? Sounds pointless.

If you&#039;re going to fix AirBART, forget about BRT. Just add a boarding zone across San Leandro from the BART station, connected via the existing pedestrian overpass and a bus turn-around on one of the industrial lots just north of the station. This would allow AirBART to use Hegenberger the entire way, shortening the trip and eliminating the sickening roller-coaster weaving.

I still don&#039;t think that would change people&#039;s opinions about OAK. 

Just build the tram.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point of the Oakland airport connector is to save the airport, which is struggling and losing carriers to SFO. The biggest problem with OAK is poor transit connectivity.</p>
<p>If something isn&#8217;t built soon, the slow decline of OAK will cost the port of Oakland a lot more than not building the connector will save AC transit.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t understand this &#8220;BRT proposal.&#8221;</p>
<p>AirBART is already non-stop service between BART and the airport, and there&#8217;s rarely traffic in the airport area. Yet it&#8217;s still slow, uncomfortable, and unreliable.</p>
<p>Is the plan to add more stops to AirBART and maybe add some signal priority to offset the delay? Sounds pointless.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re going to fix AirBART, forget about BRT. Just add a boarding zone across San Leandro from the BART station, connected via the existing pedestrian overpass and a bus turn-around on one of the industrial lots just north of the station. This would allow AirBART to use Hegenberger the entire way, shortening the trip and eliminating the sickening roller-coaster weaving.</p>
<p>I still don&#8217;t think that would change people&#8217;s opinions about OAK. </p>
<p>Just build the tram.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

