oakland airport connector project overview

8/14/2019 Oakland Airport Connector Project Overview

1/9

436 14TH STREET, SUITE 600, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG

What the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) Means to Oakland

At the September 15 Public Works Committee meeting, a BART spokesperson declared that Oakland has nostake in the OAC. Subsequent comments from BART and other regional agency staff reflected on theenvironmental/traffic benefits of the projectbut the benefits they cited are based on dubious ridership

assumptions and ignore the negative environmental effects of concrete construction.

Since the projects costs began exploding, causing private partners to step away from a Public/Private

Partnership that would have cost $100 million less than the current proposal, no analysis has been done to seeif alternatives could provide the identified goals of supporting Oakland Airport growth, increasing BART

ridership, supporting local economic development and upgrading the successful AirBART system.

Oakland was specific in its support of the OAC

In 2001, Oaklands Director of City Planning told BART:

City Staff prefers the [OAC] along the Hegenberger Road median with two intermediate stations. this option would stimulate transit-oriented development and job creation within their immediate

vicinity.

At the same time, the Council adopted a resolution that reflected their support because:

An elevated system running on a guideway above traffic will reliably make the trip in less than half the

time it takes the AirBART shuttle. intermediate stations will provide direct access to [OIA] and tothe regional BART system, thereby encouraging high quality transit oriented development near those

stops [and] the [OAC] will increase ridership on the regions existing transit systems.

In 2009, none of this is true any longer.

OAC travel times are within 1-2 minutes of BARTs 2020 AirBART projections, running at 16.3-19.3minutes (or slower, depending on which technology is chosen).

Intermediate stations have been removed, and BART has designed the system to make adding even one

additional station extremely unlikely.

Projected ridership numbers have plummeted, based on revised airport use assumptions, making the

half-billion-dollar system not significantly better than a BRT solution that would cost 1/10 as much.

The number of jobs projected to be created is small (689), especially for such an expensive project.

The money currently attached to the OAC project could fund a successful, self-supporting BRT solution whilefreeing up hundreds of millions of transportation dollars for priority projects in Oakland and elsewhere in the

East Bay and the Bay Area.

A vote against the current OAC is a vote for:

A Stronger Economy: A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) connector would have intermediate stops, thussupporting transit-oriented development, and it would be affordable to all Oakland residents.

More Jobs: Reverting OAC funds to transit agencies would create more jobs than building the OAC.

Better Transit: A BRT connector could be as fast as the OAC, and the money saved would stoptransit service cuts throughout the Bay Area.


2/9


OAC Intermediate Stops Not HappeningOne of the main reasons cited by the Oakland City Council in the past for its support of the OAC was the

inclusion of two intermediate stops that would serve East Oakland residents and businesses alongHegenberger. Under BARTs current plan, the businesses along the Hegenberger corridor will not receiveany new transit servicehence, no new customer traffic or employee access. Instead, the connector willsimply pass over them.

The feasibility of the intermediate stops is not a selection criteria

On August 28, just over three weeks before bids were due, BART released RFP Addendum #9 for the OAC

Request For Proposal (RFP). This is the first time that BART has asked for a cost estimate for anintermediate station, but the addendum states that this cost will not be included in the evaluation process forbids.1

That the intermediate station was excluded from the original RFP, despite being required in the 2006 City ofOakland agreement with BART, indicates the level of seriousness with which BART has treated theintermediate station. That its cost will not be included in the evaluation process for bids proves thatintermediate stops are not only an afterthought, but not even on the table. Whether its $15 million or $100million, BART will not use the feasibility of an intermediate stop as a selection criterion. This is not a

problem for BART, as documentation from BART to the City Council has been clear that the City ofOakland will be responsible for paying the cost of the intermediate stop.

The OAC fare gates are not set up to accommodate intermediate stop riders

The RFP clearly states that only the Coliseum station will have fare gates for BART/OAC.

In 2002, both the intermediate stop and the Airport station would have had fare gates, allowing OAC riders

to board at Coliseum BART without the use of a fare card, then exit at either stop and pay the appropriatefare. ($6 for Airport, significantly less for non-airport users). The current design puts fare gates at ColiseumBART, before riders board the OAC2 headed to the airport, and no fare gates at the intermediate station atDoolittle.3 This suggests that BART intends for riders travelling between the Airport and Doolittle to pay nofare ($0) and riders between Doolittle and Coliseum BART to pay the same $6 fare that airport riders will

be paying.

TransForm believes that this is an explicit indication that BART has no intention of an intermediate stopbeing built at Doolittleor, if BART is proposing a system where the users of Doolittle pay the same as

airport passengers, that the Doolittle stop is destined for failure. The rationale for a service fee for airportriders is that they are discretionary riders who can afford airline tickets and therefore the small incremental

cost of an additional fee, which, in relation to airfare, will not be a deterrent to use.

The out-and-out revolt against BARTs SFO service fee increase, in which airport workers stopped riding theSFO extension because of the $4 surcharge, shows that it is highly unlikely that employees on Hegenberger

would use an OAC with a $6 surcharge. This practice would be overtly unfair to the Oakland riders(residents or employees) who use this stop. The inability of BART to differentiate the fares for the

intermediate stop is a major and fatal flaw to this project.

1OAC RFP Addendum #9, item 4

2OAC RFP Addendum #9, attachment 13A

3OAC RFP Addendum #9, item 11


3/9


OAC Jobs

The OAC will create 689 jobs at a cost of $552 million

BART has continued to hedge their answers on jobs creation for the OAC. Thankfully, BARTs OAC

loan application to the Federal Transit Administration finally clears up the answer as to how many jobsthe project will create: 689 direct and indirect jobs during the construction period.1

BART told their supporters to inflate these numbers when speaking to the Council

On September 8, Kerry Hamill , BART Department Manager of Government and Community Relations,

sent out an email to supporters of the OAC with talking points about jobs. In it, she states, BARTs

very conservative projections show that the OAC Project will create 2542 total direct jobs. These jobs

will start immediately in January 2010 and peak at 1800 jobs by mid-2011. 2 This represents 4 times asmany jobs as BART reported to the FTA.

Even more worrying, Hamills email goes on to lay out three additional job calculation numbers for theOAC. She encourages meeting participants to use whatever number you prefer, even though three of

the numbers are larger than the supposed BART projection she cites in the same email, and all are

larger than the number presented to the FTA the same monthin a grant application for which jobscreation is important.3

At the September 15 Oakland City Council Public Works Committee meeting, BARTs spokesperson

stated that BART is focusing on 2,500 as their preferred number because it is conservative.4

BART is overstating their local hiring requirements

At the September 15 Public Works Committee meeting, BART Spokesperson Molly McArthur stated

that BART had a 25% local hire requirement for the OAC. Those are ironclad requirements,5 shecontinued. This is simply incorrect.

The Port of Oaklands MAPLA agreement has requirements.6 BARTs OAC Project StabilizationAgreement (PSA), written this summer, has goals,7 with no identified remedies if the goals are not

attained.

1 OAC Tiger Grant Application, page 162 Kerry Hamill, email to OAC Supporters, 9/8/093 Kerry Hamill, email to OAC Supporters, 9/8/094 City of Oakland Public Works Committee meeting webcast for 9/15/09, at 3:29 into the broadcast5 City of Oakland Public Works Committee meeting webcast for 9/15/09, 3:45 into the broadcast6 Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Project Labor Agreement (MAPLA)7 OAC TiFIA Loan Application, page 23


4/9


OAC Ridership Overview

BART is using out-of-date airport use info to present overinflated ridership projectionsBART is now presenting a range of ridership projections for the OAC that, at the high end, is 9,350 OACpassengers a day.1 This number is from the 2002 FEIR and is based on an assumption of 24.9 million airportpassengers (MAP) a year in 2020. These numbers are 10 years out of date. In June, the MTC/ABAG RegionalAirport Planning Committees consultants reported that OIA is not expected to have more than 20.9 MAP in2036 and less than 17 MAP in 2025. This is the number that BART is reporting to the FTA in their September

15th Tiger Grant and TiFIA loan applications.2 This is means BARTs projections are nearly 50% greater than

current Airport projections would suggest.

BART is using passenger mode-share assumptions that their consultant said are unlikely

BARTs 2009 ridership report predicts that the OAC will carry 336 to 346 passengers per day per MAP

(PAX/MAP). However, the SFO Airport Extension currently carries only 297 PAX/MAPdespite the fact thatthe SFO Airport Extension is more direct, faster and cheaper than the OAC.

In 2007, BART hired Fehr & Peers to conduct a review of their ridership studies. The report states 3:

We feel that the daily passengers per annual airport MAP from the [2009 BART] forecasts are slightly higherthan one would expect. The future [OAC] system would be more convenient than AirBART, but it wouldhave a $5.00 fare. Therefore, we dont believe it could attract 15-20% more riders per airport passenger (342in 2011, 356 in 2030) than the SFO connector does today (297).

The projections for the OAC ridership need to be adjusted to more accurately reflect what an independentconsultant report confirms is the likely ridership on the OAC.

AirBART and Quality Bus projections have not been calculatedNo credible ridership projections for AirBART or Quality Bus have been done since the 2002 FEIR. Given the

fact that the EIR used MAP data that is now out of date, new projections should be made.

BARTs 2009 ridership report purports to calculate AirBART ridership projections, but only does so for lowestimate MAP assumptions. Furthermore, the report assumes that future AirBART mode share will be lowerthan it has been over the past five years. The 2007 Fehr & Peers report recommends assuming a mode share of

around 10% for AirBART in the future. To remain consistent with our previous conservative recommendations,TransForm recommends using Fehr and Peers recommendation of 275 PAX/MAP (for AirBART), which isalmost exactly 10%, for a BRT solution.

Using correct assumptions, OAC Ridership is only350 more riders a day than BRT in 2025

Ridership in 2025 for three alternatives would be:OAC = 5,019BRT = 4,648AirBART = 4,073

1BART, letter to City Council Public Works Committee, 9/14/09

2OAC TIGER Grant Application, Sept. 15, 2009

3Fehr & Peers, BART Oakland Airport Connector Ridership Projections Review, 5/15/07


5/9


OAC Alternatives Analysis

BART has not analyzed BRT since 1993On May 14, BART staff told their Board that they had analyzed a BRT option for the OAC. What wasleft out of that presentation was that the analysis was from 1993. In the 2002 Final Environmental Impact

Report (FEIR), BART stated that BRT is considered infeasible and was not analyzed in the [2001][EIR].1

The configuration of Hegenberger has changed significantly since 1993. Analysis undertaken in 1993 is

therefore completely outdated in 2009. However, presentations by BART staff to the BART Board,MTC, the Port of Oakland and Oakland City Council have relied heavily on their analysis of theirexclusive lane analysis, which was not a part of the EIR process in 2002 [per the EIR itself].

Furthermore, BART staff has presented a very skewed analysis of RapidBARTOn April 23, BART staff presented their Board of Directors with a proposal to apply for up to $150million in loans to build the Oakland Airport Connector. During that discussion, it became clear to the

Board that key issues surrounding the project had not been made public, including updated ridershipprojections for the project that were still unpublished.

At that meeting, a motion was passed to hold off approving the loan application. Boardmembers made

clear that the loan application should not be voted on until updated ridership numbers had beenreleased. A number of Boardmembers also requested information on BRT options and changes to theproject since its EIR was first approved in 2002.

Two weeks later, May 7, TransForm released the RapidBART proposal and requested that BART staffinclude it in the requested analysis of surface transit alternatives. 2 Immediately, the OAC Project

Manager wrote, RapidBART is not the Quality Bus analyzed in the 2002 OAC FEIR/EIS.3

The next morning, BART staff sent the RapidBART report to four separate paid, private consultants,asking them for help discredit[ing] and put[ting] holes in the report to assuage their worried

boardmembers.4

On May 12, the OAC Project Manager emailed the four consultants, saying that General Manager

Dugger had asked that I give the [May 14 Board] presentation and add one slide attacking the TransFormproposal directly. . . . I need to punch holes in the credibility of this report.5

1OAC FEIR Vol. II, Response to Comments, pages 2-137 and 2-140

2Stuart Cohen, email to Dorothy Dugger, 5/7/2009

3Tom Dunscombe, email to Staff, 5/7/2009

4Tom Dunscombe, email to consultants, 5/8/2009

5 Tom Dunscombe, email to consultants, 5/12/2009


6/9


OAC Speed & Time Travel

OAC speeds have changed since 2002no longer 45 mphUp until 2009, the OAC promised to deliver passengers at the high speed of 45 mph, the same as thespeed limit of Airport Road, leading to the terminals. In order to accommodate technologies that

could meet the new half-billion-dollar budget, BART dropped the required sustainable speed to 27mph.1

BART misstated OAC speeds at the September 15 Public Works Committeemeeting

At the September 15 meeting of the Oakland City Council Public Works Committee, a BARTspokesperson declared that BART would be receiving bids from two companies whose technology

attains the 2002 estimated speed of 45 mph. However, BARTs application to the Federal TransitAdministration on September 14 makes clear that the speeds of the OAC will be between 27 mph

and 36 mph.2 This means that even if BART selects the high-speed (and more expensive) option for

the OAC, at 36 mph it will travel slower than traffic flow on Hegenberger and even slower thantraffic on Airport Road.

OAC travel time has been understated

BART has been claiming that the OAC travel time is 12-15 minutes, but this does not use the same

methodology as the 2002 EIR or take into account changes to the station design that have increasedwalk time. As shown in the chart on the following page, the total trip time for the OAC would be

16.3-19.3 minutes, depending on which technology is chosen. This trip time includes the in-vehicle

time, wait for the OAC, and significant walks from BART to the OAC and from the OAC to theairport terminal.

The current proposal has OAC riders walk to the end of the OAC platform at the airport, descend

via an escalator into the parking lot, and then cross three lanes of trafficjust to arrive at the existingAirBART stop. They will then need to walk to their respective terminals. This walk time is estimated

to be 4 minutes. BARTs stated walk time claims that it will be faster to walk from the OAC to the

terminal than it is from AirBART, despite involving a long walk, an escalator ride, and crossing threetraffic lanes before getting to the AirBART stop.

Furthermore, the trip time would increase significantly for travelers to the future planned Terminal 3,

as the OAC station would be located between Terminals 1 and 2. BART has stated that the walk to athird terminal would be 6-8 minutes.

1BART RFP Addendum #6, 7/28/09, #14 and #15

2BART TiFIA Loan Application, page 7


7/9


AirBART & Quality Bus travel times have been overstated

Amazingly, BARTs FEIR claims that the AirBART option has a walk time of over 1 minute longer thanthe OAC. While OAC riders at the Coliseum station must exit a BART train and walk to the far end

of the platform (710 feet from the far end of the train), AirBART riders have escalator access at the

center of the BART platform, making the average walk half as long to the escalator. Furthermore,AirBART patrons exit the station and immediately arrive at the AirBART stop, while OAC

passengers must walk 180 feet to the OAC vehicles. Clearly the walk to the OAC is at least 2minutes longer than AirBART. Assigning a BART-to-OAC walk time of 4 minutes and a BART-to-

AirBART walk time of 2 minutes more accurately reflects the actual walk time.

The Quality Bus and AirBART travel-time analysis has not been recalculated by BART using up-to-date traffic information. While the 2002 EIR traffic model included many of the roadway upgrades

that were planned for 98th Ave, Hegenberger and Airport Roadway, additional roadway capacity now

exists beyond what was modeled. Furthermore, traffic on the ground is less severe than the modelprojected, and this too should have significant bearing on the projected in-vehicle travel time for

AirBART and Quality Bus. Finally, the EIR projected 2005 traffic conditions based on airport usage of13.1 million passengers, but the City of Oakland has 2007 Hegenberger traffic counts, when OIA had

15 million passengers, showing that traffic in 2007 was less than BARTs EIR projected.

Estimated OAC, AirBART, Quality Bus & RapidBART Travel Times

OAC to

Terminal 1

OAC to

Terminal 1 AirBART Quality Bus RapidBART

Self

Propelled CableIn-vehicle time 6.3 8.8 14 12 11

Avg. Wait 2 2.5 2 2 2.5

Headway 4 5 4 4 5

Walking:

BART to OAC 4 4 2 2 2

OAC to Terminal 4 4 2 2 2

Total Trip Time 16.3 19.3 20 18 17.5

Difference - Low 1.7 1.2

Difference - High -1.3 -1.8


8/9


OAC: Community Input

Since the EIR was approved in 2002, BART has held no community meetingsregarding the OAC, even as the cost has exploded and the benefits have decreased

In May, BART sent community advocates a list of OAC outreach meetings that had been conducted

since the 2002 EIR.1 However, all but one of the meetings were updates to the BART Board or funding

agencies or meetings with business groups and were held outside of the East Oakland community.

Since 2002, funding for transportation projects has become more scarce and transit service has suffereddeclines because of funding. The OAC is being pitched as a benefit to East Oakland residents,2 even

though the project will no longer serve themmembers of this community were not consulted ascommunity-serving stations were being removed from the project and costs started making the service

(and overall BART service) more expensive.

Community groups have filed a Title VI civil rights complaint against the projectbecause of the lack of required analysis on the community impacts of this project

The complaint,3 filed by Public Advocates Inc. on behalf of TransForm, Urban Habitat and Genesis,

asserts that BART failed to evaluate whether the planned OAC will have a discriminatory impact onminority and low-income populations. If discriminatory impacts are found, BART is required to explore

less discriminatory alternatives that meet the needs of the project at a lower cost to taxpayers. Onealternative could be the RapidBART bus system proposed by TransForm, which BART has refused to

study seriously.

1 Kerry Hamill, email to community advocates, 5/13/092 Comments from Larry Reid and Carol Ward Allen at May 14 BART meeting and others3 FTA Title VI complaint, filed 9/3/09


9/9


OAC Funding

A better connector will allow our region to get moreIf the City of Oakland were to work with regional transportation agencies to build a better connector, theregion would generate far more jobs and receive many more transit projects in return. A better connector

would multiply the benefits of the OAC many times over.

What happends if the OAC is replaced by a better connector?

All but an incidental amount of OAC financing stays in the East Bay or Bay Area. The financing for BARTs

$552 million boondoggle comes almost exclusively from Alameda County and Bay Area transportationfunds. The only funds that may not remain in the Bay Area are $25 million in FTA Public/Private Partnership

funds. Spending $450-500 million in order to retain $25 million in grants does not make financial sense.

The rest of the funding can be spent on needed projectsThe Alameda County Countywide Transportation Plan identifies the following Oakland Projects as Tier 1.

These projects would be at the top of any list for reprogrammed funds:- TOD/Transit Villages at Coliseum, MacArthur and West Oakland BART stations

- Broadway/Jackson interchangesignificant livability and pedestrian improvements for Chinatown

- Grand/MacArthur BRT- AC Transit transfer station at Chabot College

- Improved bicycle access at BART stations- Oakland City Arterial Performance increases (which would speed up transit)

Reprogrammed funds and what happens to them

Please refer to the PowerPoint presentation on the following pages for an easy overview of OAC funding,which agencies control its spending and how it could be spent if it wasnt being used to fund the half-billion-

dollar OAC.1

It is important to note that the $89 million in Measure B funds could be easily reprogrammed to an OAC

BRT project. The Measure B expenditure plan specifically talks about funding 2 additional corridors ofQuality Bus service. And unused funds could go to International BRT and local bus services as defined in

the 2000 expenditure plan.

1 Echa Schneider, How is the Oakland Airport Connector funded?, A Better Oakland Blog, 2009

oakland airport connector project overview

Documents