OaklandAirport Connector – Analysis
U.C. Berkeley Transportation Policy Class, CP217 / CE 250,
Marwan Bejjani, Elie Jalkh, Steve Raney, 12/6/01
[[ minor updates 11/10/06 ]]
[[ many “facts” are now out of date ]]
Introduction:
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is proposing to link OaklandInternationalAirport with the existing regional BART rail transit through Coliseum BART Station. The airport is growing rapidly and, along with it, traffic on the streets that serve it. Thus the demand for transit alternative is expected to rise, particularly for a reliable system that air passengers can depend on to meet their scheduled flight. What would be the best solution for the public transit to and from the airport? Automated People Mover (APM), Quality Bus or Do-Nothing. This paper discusses the issue presenting each of the different alternatives considered and their respective consequences. It takes into consideration population growth, traffic projections, and cost-effectiveness speculations. Furthermore, it includes a feasibility study for the different alternatives.
Overview:
The area of study of this project is located in the City of Oakland, Alameda County, California between OaklandInternationalAirport and Coliseum BART Station. Particularly Interstate 880, Hegenburger Road, and Airport Drive; a distance of 3.2 miles. All of the mentioned corridors operate at or near capacity and are predicted to block in the coming 10 years especially in vicinity of the airport. Thus some relief to the congested traffic conditions in the area should be provided through the improvement of the existing transit service to OIA. Three main solutions are taken into consideration: the APM, Quality Bus, and do-nothing. Each alternative is discussed in terms of some characteristics such as technology usage, route alignment, stations’ location, speed, travel time, waiting time, reliability, and most importantly cost. Below is a brief explanation of each alternative:
Current Service (Do-Nothing):
BART now runs Air-BART using five buses, three in service and two for back up. They operate on 20-minute headways. The trip usually takes 13 minutes, but sometimes during peak hours it reached 30 minutes. It has a seating capacity of 240 passengers per hour per direction more with standing room. It carries now 400,000 riders per year (4 percent of airport passengers), estimated to increase to 900,000 riders per year in 2010 (if buses were added).
Quality Bus:
The main goal of Quality bus is to provide the same performance as an APM but at a much lower cost. It is equally safe, reliable, clean, seamless, quiet, and convenient. But the difficult issue is speed in traffic. The bus can go as fast as APM under ideal traffic conditions, but unfortunately maintaining an average speed of 30 mph would be impossible on Hegenburger /Airport Drive under the current traffic. Thus several changes are proposed to achieve a ten-minute trip such as allowing the bus driver to activate signal control and using the right turn lanes for through movement. It is proposed to run 35 buses per hour, each with 40 seats, thus achieving a capacity of 1400 passengers per hour per direction (same as APM). Two-minute headway is planned, thus 14 buses will be required in service and 4 as back up, thus a total of 18 buses compared to 5 Air-BART buses now. At the airport the bus allows the passengers to arrive closer to the terminals than most of the car-bound passengers. The bus could also have one or two intermediate stations.
BARTOaklandAirport Connector (OAC):
BART is proposing to connect the Coliseum Station to the OaklandAirport with an automated people mover like the one planned for San FranciscoInternationalAirport. They are proposing to run ten trains, each with a capacity of 140 people, thus 1,400 passengers per hour per direction. Six-minute headways and an average speed of 30mph are planned. The total trip time will be 10 minutes, including travel time, and getting on and off the train. An estimated 3.3 million people would ride OAC per year, 73 percent airport passengers and 27 percent airport employees. The project is estimated to cost $130 million: $25 million from the Port of Oakland, $32 million from BART, and $65.8 million from Measure B renewal or a proposed regional gas tax. BART is making the design expandable by up to two intermediate stops that would increase the travel time by a minute.
OAC is an encouraging example of three government agencies with three different agendas successfully cooperating. Michele Jacobson, former BART OAC Project Manager (now with the lead OAC consultant, Lea+Elliott), states, “This was by far the most interesting project I ever worked on. There was a great mix of stakeholders. A tremendously powerful team got together on this project. It was fascinating.” [[ nevermind ]]
Motivation for OAC
Proposals for a BART to OaklandAirport connection have been floated on and off for more than 30 years. In this instance, a confluence of interests, fortuitous timing, and rising traffic congestion served to secure initial funding. In contrast, the 1993 OAC proposal was a victim of poor timing. It flew through three rounds of a Federal competition for $100M in “suspended light rail technology” funding, but once the presidential administration changed, the entire program was summarily killed.
For the OAC, the Airport, City of Oakland, and BART all have different justifications. The Airport is planning a major expansion, doubling capacity and increasing market share at the expense of SFO. As a result of this expansion, airport staff knew the severe congestion on their two main arterials, Hegenberger and 98th Street, had to be relieved. In addition, the expansion reduced Airport parking from 8,000 spaces to 6,000 spaces, necessitating alternative transportation to accommodate twice as many passengers.
The City of Oakland chose the corridor between the BART Coliseum station and the Airport as a major focus for their economic development. Metroport, a 1.3M square foot office complex was the cornerstone. Further development includes three large parcels, a BART transit village, and low income HOPE IV housing.
Oakland steadfastly demanded the two intermediate APM stations to attract the economic development that Oakland so desperately needed. While the EIR studied APM alternatives without the intermediate stations, these alternatives were never a realistic alternative. Indeed, Metroport project developers now claim their economics only work if OAC is built. [JACOBSON]
For BART, an airport connection was part of the original BART plan of the ’50s. BART foresaw OAC as a cost-effective way to use existing capacity.
Politics & AlamedaCounty Measure B Sales Tax
Initial OAC funding came about with the passage of Alameda County Measure B Sales Tax, a collection of transportation projects that passed resoundingly. OAC had almost no opposition, polls found it was one of the most popular projects.
The language of the Measure B Expenditure Plan specifies Automated Guideway Transit that is elevated, on exclusive guideway, bypassing traffic, and not blocking Hegenberger. Says Jacobson, “Any sort of bus project was ruled out, especially if it interfered with auto traffic on Hegenberger by changing the signal timing, or if it was a dedicated BRT lane with a result of less lanes for standard auto traffic.” Hypothetically, if the EIR preferred Quality Bus, then the Alameda County Transportation Authority would have to amend the Measure B Expenditure Plan.
Sierra Club was the lone opposing voice, arguing bus was more cost-effective than APM. Further details are provided in the AirBART Quality Bus Section below, but, in a nutshell, Sierra Club’s complaints had little impact.
BART labor unions were in favor of Measure B to expand BART and provide jobs. [[ if OAC will be a DBOM (an independent firm designs, builds, operates, and maintains) project, this may alienate unions ]]
In the ballot measure, capital cost was given as $130M. [[ According to one source, one entity knew it was going to cost much more but understated the numbers to ensure political success. ]] Capital costs have since grown to $232M, and BART projects typically incur significant cost overruns once ground is broken. [[ according to TALC’s report on BART to San Jose ]] A typical APM should cost $40M to $50M per mile. The airport’s sandy bayshore soil requires costly 100 foot underground columns to support the APM. The agencies are currently working to secure additional project funding.
September 11
September 11 had insignificant impact. Mansel indicates, unlike most other airports, passenger traffic bounced back by November, “we were up 3 percent month to month over 2000.” The leisure market has been strongest. While United and American shrank, Southwest expanded service. SFO’s international travel and national symbolism make it a prominent terrorist target. Oakland may have benefited passengers feeling relatively more secure in a small, domestic airport. The EIR projects continued strong passenger growth for OaklandAirport, and based on the previous 25 year record of strong growth, we agree.
OAC’s airport station design already meets FAA’s requirement for 300 foot separation between terminal and station, which minimizes bomb blast impacts. Some U.S. airport people movers are in violation of this rule. [MANSEL – APM]
Customer Experience
Traveling to the airport via BART & OAC is not the fastest route to the airport, but is the most reliable. Less reliable is auto travel, most of which flows over Highway 880 (LOS F) where an accident frequently causes missed flights. Likewise, with OAC traveling above the congested Hegenberger arterial, this 3.2 mile portion of the trip is also much more reliable than auto. In addition, downtown San Francisco air passengers using BART arrive for Oakland flights ahead of SFO.
48 percent of Oakland air passengers have carry on-bags; these passengers are the primary market for OAC. For passengers with many suitcases, negotiating the heavy rail station turnstiles, ascents, and descents is too burdensome. For the APM station, turnstiles were selected to accommodate passengers with large bags. In addition, APM ticketing is seamlessly integrated with the rest of the BART system, an improvement over the additional ticket transaction for the current AirBART bus. The airport APM station turnstiles are physically closer to the terminal than any of the parking garage spaces. From the turnstile, a short walk takes to the 300-foot bridge and a moving walkway brings you into the terminal. From there, escalators take you 1 floor down to ticketing, and then a half floor down to security. Project agencies have done a commendable job of sweating the details to ensure a smooth customer experience.
AirBART / Quality Bus
AirBART is the name of the current bus service from the BART station to the airport. It carries 6.2% of airline passenger trips and turns a profit. The Sierra Club argued that improving this successful service should be the preferred alternative, and our Feasibility Study agrees.
Sherman Lewis, a Sierra Club Chapter leader and Professor at Cal State Hayward, submitted a detailed report to BART asking for Quality Bus design improvements. BART was considerate in their reply, but the resultant EIR bus alternative wasn’t very imaginative. Quality Bus problems are threefold: A) slow worst case trip time of 30 minutes when traffic is backed up on Hegenberger (60 when a Raiders game lets out during holiday travel season on a rainy day), B) interaction with other Hegenberger traffic, C) insufficient instantaneous capacity to handle the rush from an emptying BART train.
[[ For an imaginative bus alternative with credibility, Sierra Club would need to fund their own study, using a top transportation consulting firm - an unlikely scenario ]]
Ironically, the Quality Bus alternative will be at least partially implemented as a stopgap before OAC is built. Bus frequency will increase, and bus driver signal control is on the agenda.
Parking
Parking revenues comprise more than 40 percent of Oakland airport revenue. With the terminal expansion, the airport will be losing 2,000, or 25 percent, of their spaces. Over the next 10 years, airport parking revenue will decrease.
BART and new development may end up aggressively competing against the airport for parking revenue. BART’s Oakland Coliseum station parking may become the premier park and ride lot. For business day trips, the combination of free parking and OAC’s Hegenberger traffic avoidance is compelling. [[ BART and the Port may not be in complete harmony about parking revenue strategy. ]]
Along with the new office buildings at the intermediate OAC stations comes structured parking, creating a park and ride opportunity without additional costs for shuttle buses or drivers. The airport plans to add two large, remote parking lots over the next 20 years, but these lots will not offer APM transit. Loss of parking revenue could develop into a serious issue over time; SFO may see a bigger impact. It did not appear that the airport was cognizant of BART’s concerted effort to poach parking revenue.
Economics / Feasibility
On average, an OAC passenger takes a 13 mile BART trip, generating $2 in OAC revenue and $2.15 in heavy rail revenue. This additional heavy rail revenue, with essentially no additional cost to BART (the capacity already exists), explains Jacobson’s contention that OAC has far better economics than the SFO or San Jose Airport people movers, “Professor Wachs won’t believe it, but OAC will probably make money for the BART system.” We don’t believe it, but, once a number of adjustments are accounted for, the financials are still beat other Bay Area rail projects. The EIR analyzes annual operating income, overlooking debt service. In the Feasibility Study below, we show OAC covers operating costs, but not capital costs.
BART actually underestimated fare box revenue. They assume incorrectly a $2 OAC fare and no BART fare increases through 2020. The OAC fare will probably be set at $3 because the market will bear it, but the BART management dictated using the existing AirBART fare.
The July 2001 draft EIR assumes OAC will obtain 16% share of airport passengers. [[ This was an overestimate ]] Simultaneously in July of 2001, Mansel’s conference paper stated, “BART and the Port anticipate the Connector will transport over 10% of airline passengers to and from the airport.” [MANSEL – APM] From our interview, Mansel explained, “Washington national mode share is about 14%, and it is the ideal setting for an APM. You’re 10 minutes from downtown WashingtonD.C., so have a great service area - the perfect rail to airport scenario.”
Agency Cooperation
The organizational challenge of coordinating 3 government agencies was further complicated by the involvement of the FTA and multiple City of Oakland departments. Mansel and Jacobson believe the consortium collaborated well and point out that it could have been much worse. The two main conflicts were over strategy and airport alignment.
Regarding cooperation, Mansel avows, “It has been tense at times. We’ve had differences over political strategy and funding strategy.”
For the airport station alignment, BART preferred the “Western” because it provided more marketing visibility to fill more seats. In contrast, the eastern alignment hides BART from view, providing a marketing advantage for door-to-door vans and off-airport parking shuttles. The airport’s preference for the “Eastern” was threefold: A) minimal construction impact for Eastern versus access road degradation for Western, B) Western piers interrupt access road line of sight, compromising human factors, C) Western violates the FAA’s 300 foot bomb blast limit. The Eastern alignment was victorious.
In Summary
Warts and all, OAC is a compelling project. As passenger trips grow, the airport will continue to struggle with the traffic bottleneck on its two arterials, necessitating continued demand management. The public would be well served by an area-wide parking strategy, protecting airport revenue and sharing underutilized spaces such as those by the Oakland Coliseum stadium and arena.
Feasibility Study
Capital costs are based on the design, the acquisition of right of way, the resolution of environmental disputes and the construction of each alternative. The estimations were based on three major factors, which are historical data, cost of other similar projects and the experience of BART’s team.
The No Action alternative is based on the purchase of 40-foot low floor buses; their cost will be equal to $0.4 million.
The Quality Bus option consists of buying 60-foot long articulated buses. The cost of the required stations were calculated from Lea + Elliot transit cost database. The total cost of this alternative turned out to be equal to $30.2 million.
The AGT alternative is evaluated for 4 different options; one that consists of just the AGT and two stations (origin and destination), one with 2 stations but with a “fishhook” into the newest design for the airport terminal (option D), an alternative with 4 stations with two intermediate ones and, finally, the same latter one but with option D. Capital costs for each of the different options are shown in Table 1 (according to the EIS report, from BART, Lea + Elliot and WSA).