BART - Oakland Airport Connector A Case Study

1. BART - Oakland Airport ConnectorA Case Study Michele Jacobson, AICP October 24, 2013

2. TheEarly Vision BART as envisioned in 1956. First line opens in 1972. No link to Oakland International Airport. Shuttle bus service – AirBART – makes the three-mile trip.

3. Brief Project Description • Congestion + events at Oakland Coliseum = reduced reliability for AirBART. • Solution – “The Connector” • Dedicated guideway – combination of elevated, subway and at-grade. • Performance specifications were part of the design-build procurement process - determined the specific APM technology.

4. Brief Project Description • December 9, 2009, BART Board of Directors selected the joint venture • Flatiron and Parsons as the Design-Build Contractor and • Dopplemayer Cable Car as the System Technology and Operation and Maintenance Contractor. • Construction of the Connector is underway and revenue service is expected next Fall. 

5. Getting There • Not a straight line process. • Some strong supporters – • The Oakland Chamber of Commerce • Alameda County Transportation Commission • Port of Oakland • A few BART Board members • BART as an agency was ambivalent at best. Agency not comfortable sponsoring other technologies. Not BART’s mandate. • Despite support and the project’s potential to be beneficial to BART and others, it couldn’t get off the ground.

6. 1997 - confluence of events changed things. • One person controlled project within the agency. The project “champion”. • Broad understanding of how projects developed within the agency and in partnership with other agencies. • Belief in the project concept - increase BART ridership during non-peak hours and in non-peak directions – using BART’s existing excess capacity. Without expanding BART service, we had the potential to gain many more BART riders. • Minimal interference - crucial at beginning. • Team was focused. Became the faces of the project to the outside world. • Help from some APM suppliers.

7. EDUCATIONAL PROCESS • Read previous studies including the SLRT application – Suspended Light Rail Transit – a solution that did not fit our problem. • Researched, attended conferences, talked to people, read literature. • Participated in regional funding discussions to learn about funding options. • Built alliances both inside and outside of BART. Advocated for project funding - each source had its own unique requirements. • Sold the idea of an APM within BART.

8. Selling the Idea inside BART • Few existing examples of APMs - none within easy car ride of Oakland. • Potential technology suppliers shared information – some more than others . • BART’s General Manager, Tom Margro, and a group of managers flew out for plant tour and system demonstration of APM in Nevada. After the visit, Tom asked for their opinions. They agreed that it could work. Unusual if not unprecedented occasion within BART. THE PROJECT IS REAL!

9. Taking it to the Streets • Prepared environmental studies. • Held numerous public meetings and hearings. • Provided support on all funding applications. • Formed community task force. Started and distributed a newsletter. • Explained the project to newly elected official or manager – from their perspective. • Met with everyone - politicians, engineers, students, homeowners groups, special interest groups, media, etc. • Formed alliances - groups with similar interests. • Commissioned a Station Area Plan. • Worked with S&P Railroad on crossing safety. • Worked with developers to ensure good pedestrian connectivity. • Held community events (station area clean-ups).

10. Conclusions • A champion inside the agency is critical – especially at project’s incubation stage (Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority example) • Technology advocates should • be willing to share information • think of the problem from the agency perspective • Selecting the technology is a small part of making the project a reality.