Comments on: Hey BART, can you float me to the airport?

By: Kim Moore

Kim Moore — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:30:49 +0000

I suggest that everyone investigate suspended guideway technology at http://www.Aerobus.com It is a type of monorail system with dramatically reduced per mile costs, both in construction and right-of-way, compared to ground-based train-on-track approaches.
It offers a real solution, now, for many passenger and freight demands, with available hardware/software. It can be stand-alone or serve as a transit bridge between systems or extend existing systems at line’s end.
For decades we have allowed the search for the “perfect” solution to prevent the design and implementation of “good enough”. Let’s begin building “good enough”, where urban and suburban density justifies funding.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:01:00 +0000

In utopia, a rail line would be nice. Given where we are the shuttle will be the mode for a long time. Two improvements occur to me.
1 indeed some dedicated roadway would solve most of the reliability issues.
2. Baltimore Airport’s shuttle to Amtrak/MARC commuter trains is FREE. Much easier than fumbling for change at yet another TVM.

BTW the Baltimore Light Rail which starts @ the north door of the Terminal concourse connects to the downtown Amtrak/MARC Staqtion. Some planners actually thought.

By: dcuff

dcuff — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:29:09 +0000

In response to D’s comments: “What’s wrong with the AirBART buses?” It’s a good question.
I have used the AirBART shuttles a few times, and found they offered good, quick service – except one time when a shuttle got stuck in traffic and delivered me to the airport slower than I would have liked.
Little incidents like that are partly why BART proposed a new airport connector service to provide more reliable, convenient and “seamless” service to the airport.
BART also figures fewer people would drive to the airport if a new rail link was available.
I’ve personally recommended the AirBART shuttles to friends and relatives and found some liked it and others were reluctant to try it with explanations like this: “I don’t want the extra hassle of transfering from a train to a bus when there are enough things to worry about to get to the airport on time?”
Is it worth a big new project for a little more convenience and reliability to get to Oakland airport?
I can’t say. In the mean time, the shuttle isn’t a bad option.

By: D

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:01:54 +0000

What’s wrong with the AirBART buses? I’ve used them probably a dozen times over the last two years. They travel on city streets (instead of the freeway) and I’ve never encountered traffic.

Yes, having to go down a set of stairs is a pain. If I have a lot of luggage, I take a door-to-door shuttle. But, all-in-all, the buses work.

This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

By: Friday Snippets – Home Girl

Friday Snippets – Home Girl — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:53:17 +0000

[...] magnetic buses: what next? BART looks at options — including a floating train — for a connection to Oakland airport [Hat-tip Curbed [...]

By: Queen

Queen — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:33:12 +0000

I feel inexorably drawn to the maglev idea because people with huge magnets could mooch rides, creating an entire subculture just as railroad trains did with hoboes in the 1920s.

By: Michael Krueger

Michael Krueger — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:27:45 +0000

Maglev? For a people mover? You’ve got to be kidding, right?

Bus lanes are obviously the most cost-effective improvement, the one that can be done soonest, and the one that will cost the least to operate and maintain; given the way transit dollars are typically spent in the Bay Area (cough-cough, BART to SFO, cough, Central Subway, cough-cough, BART to San Jose, cough), this will undoubtedly place bus lanes at the very bottom of the bottom of the list of project alternatives.

As for the fact that “Oakland officials are not likely to rush to surrender space in city street,” this just shows how meaningless Oakland’s “transit-first policy,” adopted in 1996 and enshrined on p. 133 of the city’s General Plan, really is. Yes, yes, by all means, “transit first,” but we couldn’t possibly use any precious street space to accommodate transit if it might inconvenience drivers . . . far better to blow hundreds of millions of scarce transit dollars on the most expensive solution conceivable!

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:45:46 +0000

BART’s attention to prudent spending here is appreciated. Murray is right, however, that the board should get moving on this ASAP. Whatever the technology, it seems like exactly the kind of infrastructure project that could get some fast-track cash and some more good jobs going in our area.

If they did do dedicated bus lanes, what do you suppose the odds would be of having a transfer point on the new bus rapid transit line as well?