Comments on: Advocates Want Oakland Airport Connector Funds for Transit Operations

By: East Lake Biker

East Lake Biker — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:09:42 +0000

yes, more bike lanes and more service on the bay bridge bike shuttle

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:27:26 +0000

i’d like to use the funds to build bikeable streets in the most transit-dependent areas. that will move us more effectively and more quickly towards Utopia than any other use of the funds.

By: Dave Snyder

Dave Snyder — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:21:14 +0000

@ Alexander,

Smart capital projects are definitely worth pursuing even in times of declining budgets and reduced service. The SFMTA should continue with a complete (and not cheap) conversion of its traffic signals to a centrally-controlled transit-priority system. They should build the Geary and Van Ness BRT systems and then more BRT systems to expand the BRT network. They should invest in significant streetscape improvements to facilitate more bicycling. When it comes to the regional rail network, the region should improve its conventional rail, especially the Caltrain corridor, with passing tracks and new stations and more direct connections to BART. It should increase capacity in the Market Street stations, which is at capacity. It should finish the earthquake retrofit so the damn thing works at all after the next moderate earthquake. The list goes on, AND THE OAKLAND AIRPORT CONNECTOR IS NOT ON IT.

Your point is correct in principle, but not in the specifics of this case.

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:48:13 +0000

“.how about filling them in construction workers pockets and then actually end up with something to show for it at the end of the day. One thing Obama never understood: spend the money on improving the infrastructure not paying off medicare and transit workers that way you actually have a better system when we pull out of the recession.”

BART’s proposed monorail would not leave us with a “better system”. Far from it.

The OAC “cable-car” would be slower and require much more operating expense than any other possible solution, including “No-Build” option.

Try watching the Simpsons ‘Monorail’ episode (starring Leonard Nimoy). Perhaps you’ll learn something….

By: John Murphy

John Murphy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:42:55 +0000

@Alexander – if this was something anyone actually wanted, we might agree with you. All this project will “permanently do” is increase BART’s operating deficit – strange but true it costs money to run trains. All public transit is subsidized, but we need to pick and choose the best ROI, this project misses that mark by a mile.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:52:38 +0000

You are now entering the dawn of a new era in America, that of “fiscal chaos.” This story represents it in so many ways. All I ever wanted was a stupid lane to ride my bike in.

By: Robo

Robo — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:39:44 +0000

This and the SF Muni Central Subway boondoggle makes me wonder who thinks this stuff up, who benefits, and why are such idiotic projects so hard to halt?
Given the state of the economy in the US, the high unemployment, rube-goldbergian funding, discriminatory health care, and endless illegal wars, European-style socialism looks pretty damned good.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:26:22 +0000

GREAT – why don’t we spend the money on filling the pockets temporarily for transit workers……how about filling them in construction workers pockets and then actually end up with something to show for it at the end of the day. One thing Obama never understood: spend the money on improving the infrastructure not paying off medicare and transit workers that way you actually have a better system when we pull out of the recession. The philosophy that I see displayed belongs more so in heart of European socialism. People think big – as in permanent good – not a few more happy faces.

By: Alan from Berkeley

Alan from Berkeley — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:26:44 +0000

Let’s remember that diverting this money — though perhaps a fatal blow to the ill-conceived OAC — need NOT deprive BART of a good airport connector. A simple BRT system would cost less than a third as much to implement, would not require a $12 r/t fare, would be at least as fast, and would provide at least one community-serving intermediate stop on Hegenburger. It’s exactly that analysis that BART arrogantly chose not to provide to the FTA — because they knew all the mitgating alternatives would be seen as superior choices.

MTC should now recognize that it’s time to fold OAC’s hand and walk away from the boongdoggle table, not double-down on a low-odds $70MM bet.

By: jamie

jamie — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:55:37 +0000

Let the cage matches begin …. something tells me high-speed rail is going to be in a similar fight for funds with the SF MTA’s, AC Transits, and SamTranses of California … Dan Walters wrote about HSR’s business plan today .. http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/2484870.html I hope I see high-speed rail terminating at the Transbay Transit Center in my lifetime, but the economic health of California is in pretty bad shape to be talking about issuing the initial $9.9 billion of Prop 1a bonds from the start …. hail mary hopes for ARRA money.

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:54:09 +0000

In addition to the $70 million in stimulus funds, there is also the seismic retrofit money BART has “loaned” itself to help pay for OAC.

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:58:41 +0000

What a surprise. James Fang is a f*cking idiot. We really need to retire him.

And another surprise: the MTA board refused to even consider this option to help plug their deficit.

By: mcas

mcas — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:17:41 +0000

Re-distributing these funds would be a great way to reverse the years of discriminatory funding MTC has been found guilty of, thanks to the same folks who brought this complaint to the FTA.

More on the MTC’s history of under-funding transit agencies that provide service to people of color while over-funding services to rich, white people: http://urbanhabitat.org/uh/tj/press2006-12-21