Will Oakland City Council derail half-billion dollar Oakland Airport Connector project?

When the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's Oakland Airport Connector project was first conceived 20-plus years ago, the idea was to build a gleaming, elevated tramway that would whisk air travelers from BART's Coliseum Station to the Oakland Airport's main terminal in mere minutes.

No fuss, no muss – and the family car stays in the garage.

In 2000, when interest in the project began to pick up steam, the estimated $132 million price tag for the 3.2-mile people-mover didn't seem all that bad.

That was then.

Nine years later, critics of the OAC (Oakland Airport Connector) say what once was a modest proposal has morphed into a massive runaway train of a project that BART officials admit would cost the district an estimated half-billion dollars and maybe more.

Those critics, led in large part by an Oakland-based public transit advocacy organization called TransForm, say not only has the OAC's overall price rocketed out of control, but few if any of the original project benefits promised by BART remain in the current design specifications.

TransForm's John Knox White says, for instance, that the OAC was supposed to have a top speed of 45 mph. Now it's about 27 mph. He added that over the years, its projected ridership and job-creation numbers have steadily declined.

Knox White said that what was once a system designed to "seamlessly" whisk an air traveler from the Coliseum Station to the airport terminal lobby is now a micro transit system that would take passengers only as far as the western end of the airport's hourly and short-term parking lot.

BART passengers, he says, would have to carry bags downstairs and across a busy intersection to enter the airport terminal.

He notes that the OAC's fares, once quite reasonable at $4 for a round-trip ticket in 2000, would now cost passengers $12.

"BART's attitude is, 'This is the project. We're going to build it no matter what the cost. We are done talking about it,' " Knox White said during a recent interview.

Indeed, a clear majority of the transit district's nine board members recently named four sets of "prequalified" corporations or corporate partnerships to be invited to submit bids on the project. BART officials say they hope to name the winning bidder by the end of the year.

But even as the connector – which would run along an elevated gateway down busy Hegenberger Road – appears to be on the verge of getting a final green light, some dissatisfied members of the Oakland City Council say they hope to derail the project in favor of a much cheaper bus alternative that TransForm is promoting.

Nancy Nadel, chairwoman of the Oakland City Council's public works committee, said she and members of her committee believe the OAC must be stopped.

Council colleague Rebecca Kaplan agreed, calling the OAC one of the greatest boondoggles she's encountered.

"We have to convince them that this proposal is out of control and represents an extremely poor use of public funds. I believe they will bankrupt themselves if they proceed," Kaplan said.

Whether the city continues its participation in the OAC project may depend on what happens at a Sept. 15 meeting of the Oakland council's public works committee.

Kaplan said that, depending on what they hear, the committee may vote to recommend that the full council withdraw the city's support, reversing its initial endorsement of the project in 2001.

"(The council) endorsed the project when it was going to cost $132 million and when it had two stops planned. … Now we're looking at a project costing almost 10 times that amount and which has no intermediate stops," she said.

Both councilwomen say they prefer TransForm's alternative proposal, dubbed "RapidBART."

That proposal features a high-tech bus system that would run up and down Hegenberger in specially marked lanes with a series of prioritized green lights to avoid stops. TransForm officials estimate their proposal would cost the transit district between $45 million and $60 million.

BART spokesman Linton Johnson panned the TransForm alternative, adding that the majority of the district's board of directors, staff and many community leaders remain convinced that the money to be spent on the OAC would be viewed as a wise investment in the long term.

He called TransForm's bus proposal a warmed-over reiteration of the district's earlier analysis of the use of buses – an analysis that was ultimately rejected by the BART board in favor of the current OAC plan.

"I believe once the Oakland City Council sees the real numbers they will as well understand that TransForm's idea is a great deal of hype with very little substance," Johnson wrote.

Project proponents contend that the OAC people mover is the only reliable way to get riders from the Coliseum BART station to the airport in a timely and dependable manner.

They say even the most carefully computer-controlled bus system couldn't avoid delays on Hegenberger Road during heavy traffic periods and when accidents block the special bus lanes.

Connector project proponents also point out that while the district's existing "AirBART" express bus service is popular, riders at times have had to endure delays of up to 30 minutes or more due to traffic and have missed their flights as a result.

TransForm's Knox White counters that the transit district's board majority and staff have simply closed ranks around the troubled proposal and will do and say anything to make it as palatable to the public as is possible.

Knox White points to a series of BART e-mails obtained through the state Public Records Act (a set of which was independently obtained by The Bee).

In one May 8 e-mail, Tom Dunscombe, BART's Oakland Airport Connector project manager, expresses concerns about TransForm's request for the district to analyze its RapidBART bus counterproposal.

"Any information you can provide to put holes in this would be appreciated – we have some worried Board members and I need to easily discredit this (TransForm) 'paper,' " Dunscombe, who declined to return an e-mail seeking clarification, wrote to four outside project consultants. BART spokesman James Allison defended Dunscombe, but failed in a written response to explain the project manager's choice of words.

Dunscombe concludes the e-mail: "Any time you can give to this would be really helpful – another delay from the Board and we are practically dead."

This article jointly appeared in The Sacramento Bee on Sunday, Aug. 6, 2009. Read it here.