Passenger Trains > BART board OKs people mover to Oakland airport

Full Article Here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/11/MNOE1B2FAE.DTL

Info on BART's website: http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/oac/index.aspx

The BART Board of Directors has approved a driver-less (engineer-less?) "people mover" type train from the Oakland Coliseum BART station to the Oakland Airport. May be in service by 2013.

Has to be an improvement over that damn bus

John Gezelius
Tustin, CA

john1082 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has to be an improvement over that damn bus

From my experience that damn bus works pretty well. Straight shot to the airport, room for luggage, frequent service, much cheaper than a taxi at $3.00 (only up a buck recently from it's original $2 to pay for a new fleet of vehciles)...and it pays for itself off of farebox revenue, VERY rare in public transit. There are those who question whether this $500 million people mover is really necessary or justified in tough economic times and I'm one of them. BART says the fare on the people mover will be $3 (same as the bus) but after seeing the way BART gouges the passengers en route to the San Francisco International Airport I'll believe that when I see it! I also predict massive cost overruns and construction delays in getting the thing built but what else is new there? Anybody really think we'll see service in 2013? Not me!

I've used the bus a few times and it has been OK. However, the signage at the Airport could be more conspicuous. Given that I live near Chico, Sacramento would seem to be the obvious place to fly to and from. However, lately I have been using Oakland for the following reasons: more convenient flights, I can get from Chico to Oakland Airport for $3 if I use my Amtrak guest rewards points, I would rather not subsidize "happy motoring" by paying for parking at the airport, and lastly I save BIG bucks. To drive from Chico to Sac and back in reality costs well over $100 (using 50 cents/mile and the ride in my farm truck is terrible) and the parking fees have often cost me over $100. On recent trips, to Syracuse to visit my daughter and to Minnesota for a dogsled trip, airline tickets were comparable from either airport. For me using Oakland requires more planning and obviously takes longer, but it does work. I generally fly late in the day and plan to return early so as to have the maximum number of trains available. The walk from the Colliseum Amtrak station to the Airport Shuttle and BART is easy.

I'm seeing it hard to justify a 3 mile, almost 15 minute ride (that's aweful slow!!!!) that will cost probably $6, vs. the current $3. Of course, at least they are being smarter than they were with SFO and not taking BART over to the airport and back :)

I sure wish they'd just tear out the BART to SFO and re-lay track for an extension of the SFO AirTrain down to Millbrea - the massive parking garage there and the connection with CalTrain would make that a much better option and make everything so much simpler.

Jarrod DellaChiesa
Oakley, CA

I agree that the bus works OK for now, but part of the point is to get a transport that is separated from street traffic. Sweating out a flight connection during rush hour traffic cannot be a good transportation choice whether driving to the airport or taking public transit. It seems a saner solution than at SFO where they have corrupted the whole BART line.

jdellachiesa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I sure wish they'd just tear out the BART to SFO
> and re-lay track for an extension of the SFO
> AirTrain down to Millbrea - the massive parking
> garage there and the connection with CalTrain
> would make that a much better option and make
> everything so much simpler.


Totally agree with that one. So, you're changing to the AirTrain at Millbrae. Well, the BART only stops at ONE terminal, so you have to hoof to the others or take the AirTrain anyway. Completely stupid arrangement.

Z

My objection is that it is a cable-pulled system with three stops: two terminals and one at the halfway point. Since all four cars are attached to the same cable, they must all move or stop at the same time. Which means that they are locked into stopping at the intermediate stop, it must be positioned exactly halfway between the two terminals, and the dwell time at the midpoint must be the exact same length as it is at the terminals. I'd rather them go with a conventional propulsion system like the SFO, JFK, ATL, DEN, MCO and other people movers rather than use the far-less-common cable pull system.

Also, it looks like the airport train terminal will be located near the short-term parking, requiring a hike to the actual ticket counters, and the BART connection terminal also has a rather long walk. For almost a half billion dollars, I would've rather seen them extend it out just a bit on either end to reduce the required walking distance.

Bart.gov has an animation of the new setup. They allege total time moving will be 8m12s en route; the rest of the estimated travel time is accounting for the average wait time between trains, walking and so on.

Tourists and out of town visitors are just pockets to be picked by local governments. If they rent a car at the airport, they get to pay layers of extra taxes for the privilege.