Comments on: is that an airport connector in your pocket?

By: Dee Wigley

Dee Wigley — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:33:31 +0000

Good Job.

By: BART Fan

BART Fan — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:29:33 +0000

I believe the Airport Connector is a good idea as planned. The selected mode – Automated Guideway Transit – is safe, reliable, and unlike the many PRT examples above, – proven technology. PRT sales brochures always say they’re dirt cheap, until you start digging into the numbers. Bottom line is that any elevated structure is expensive, especially in a siesmic zone 4.

As for BRT, I agree that it is a cost effective solution. However, if you read the FEIR for the project, BRT was considered but AGT was preferred because of the grade separation (elevated structure) which will allow trains to bypass traffic on Hegenberger Road. This road can become quite crowded at times, and AGT would provide a vast improvement over current AirBART times. BRT could be better than AirBART, but not as quick or convenient and still subject to heavy traffic.

By: Frequent Amtrak Rider

Frequent Amtrak Rider — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:57:06 +0000

Only Oakland would approve of something this awful. Is anyone in the world building elevated structures anymore? Wouldn’t a BRT style busway would be more effective? This is politcal. Oakland wants an airport connector because SF has one even though it really doesh’t make any sense.

By: Bruce De Benedictis

Bruce De Benedictis — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:06:34 +0000

The Airport Conncetor is an example of something that I like to call Amusement Park Transportation planning. This is a proposal for service that the proponents, generally people who would get gobs of money for building them, would never ride themselves, and in fact, could never imagine attracting enough riders to be a paying operation. So they propose amusement park rides for them, saying that the the exoticism of the rides will attract riders. Examples are “People Movers,” ferries, aerial cable cars and amphibious buses (which were both proposed for service to Alameda Point, high-speed rail, and in fact, pretty much all rail service.

The basic problem with the Airport Connector is that no matter what technology you use for it, the amount of time it will save is minuscule compared to the amount of time that you lose by going to a BART station, waiting for a train, taking it to the transfer station, and transferring to an additional service. If you live far enough from a BART station, you might as well go all the way to the airport. Most of Oakland and neighboring cities falls into that category.

What might be worthwhile would be a separate roadway for buses from the BART station to the airport, both Airbart and AC Transit. A good start would be an elevated roadway that would include and replace the pedestrian walkway to the Colosseum and Arena, which would continue on to the opposite side of the freeway. This would add a couple more destinatiion points right off the bat.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:48:42 +0000

At Baltimore, the airbart equivalent is a free service of the airport. Encourages usage, eh? And, the Light Rail starts just outside of the terminal to take you downtown.

By: South Bay Resident

South Bay Resident — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:16:18 +0000

I think that these people movers are the wrong approach for a BART-Oakland airport connector for several reasons:

1) Nobody has been able to build a successful, cost effective PRT system of this kind. Once you’re building an elevated guideway, it is nearly as cheap to build it for larger vehicles as it is to build it for small vehicles.

2)Demand for the transportation between the terminal and BART is clumpy. That is, the only time you get people wanting to go to the airport is immediately after a train arrives at the station. This would easily overwhelm even a large number of small vehicles. The situation is similar at the airport side.

3)Being stuck in a small vehicle with a stranger creates an uncomfortable situation for many riders who, quite reasonably might fear for their safety.

So, what’s the right approach?

I’d improve signage directing people to the AirBART buses and give them signal priority (or mabye even queue jumping lanes). This bus service nearly pays for itself and requires no capital investment. I might also improve bus service between the BART station and the airport maintaince facilities, since airport workers represent the bulk of the ridership on airport rail lines. This approach would be far more cost efffective than the proposed monorail and would free up money for projects that could actually improve mobility in the SF Bay area.

By: Robert Raburn

Robert Raburn — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 14:38:40 +0000

Prior to recent service cuts by AC Transit, my wife and I rode a reliable AC Transit
#58 bus that linked Downtown Oakland with the Airport. The main problem with that
service along the MacArthur corridor was the delay caused by having to circle the
Coliseum BART Station. Now a trip to the airport now requires a minimum of two bus
transfers. Most people will still need multiple transit transfers even with the costly airport connecter.

With $5 fares for only leg of the trip, a taxi represents a reasonable option.

April 2007 is the mandated deadline to consider jettisoning this long-delayed expenditure
proposal passed by the voters in November 2000. Let the ACTIA Board know your
opinion.

By: Steven Hauser

Steven Hauser — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:55:00 +0000

Taxi 2000, where the picture is from, is in MY TOWN. They basically collapsed in a lawsuit – stock scam. A bunch of hucksters like most “faith based transit”. Google “PRT is a JOKE” for the history of 40 years of scams and schemes. And then check the Denver Airport Luggage system debacle, hundreds of millions of dollars of debt shifted to the public by United Airlines failed PRT luggage system that NEVER WORKED.

PRT is like rocket packs, what a cool idea until your pants catch on fire.