BART officials say a new elevated tramway from the Coliseum Station
is the best way to get travelers to Oakland International Airport. But
a group of transit activists say the Oakland Airport Connector is a
half-billion-dollar boondoggle, and the region would be better served
by a rapid-bus system at about one-tenth the price. The activists make
a persuasive argument. But the Bay Area lacks a regional transit agency
capable of recommending the system that makes the most sense.
The problem is that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a
regional agency led by politicians from around the Bay Area, has
historically let individual transit agencies decide what to build.
Predictably, the Bay Area is now a hodgepodge of transit options that
interconnect poorly. And BART appears determined to plow ahead with its
$500 million connector, despite convincing evidence that it may not be
the best option. “This project loses money once it’s built and it
continues to lose money after that,” explained Oakland City
Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, a transportation wonk who is
attempting to convince the council to oppose BART’s plans.
BART officials have spent much of the summer defending their project
and trying to downplay the rapid-bus proposal, saying they studied it
in 2002 and determined it wasn’t feasible. But their claims don’t stand
up to scrutiny. Agency documents obtained by an Oakland-based transit
advocacy group, TransForm, reveal that at least one BART consultant
acknowledged that the agency has not thoroughly examined the bus system
proposed by transit activists. Moreover, internal e-mails obtained by
TransForm raise serious questions as to whether BART officials could be
unbiased. In one e-mail sent earlier this year to BART consultants,
Tom Dunscombe, the airport connector project director, asked for
help to “discredit” TransForm’s rapid-bus plan. “Any information you
can provide to put holes in this would be appreciated,” Dunscombe
wrote.
The rapid-bus system would take travelers to and from the airport on
specially designed buses that make limited stops, have their own lanes
at intersections along Hegenberger Road, and would run through a series
of prioritized green lights to avoid slow downs. TransForm estimates it
will cost about $45 million to $60 million to build. By contrast, BART
wants to construct an elevated, automated tramway that would cost $522
million to $552 million.
As for the BART e-mails, they’re not all that surprising. It’s not
uncommon for public agencies to become wedded to plans and decisions
over time, and then fiercely defend them rather than objectively
consider alternatives. BART staffers have wanted to build a rail
connector for at least two decades. In addition, BART views itself as a
train operator — not a bus operator.
Which is precisely why the Bay Area needs the MTC or some other
agency to independently analyze such things and make unbiased
decisions. If a rapid-bus system were the right choice, the agency
could then direct AC Transit to build and run it, leaving BART to
concentrate on what it does best.
Kaplan pointed out that the Bay Area could learn from other
metropolitan areas that have coordinated planning agencies. The
Portland area, for example, has Metro, a regional body that analyzes
transit needs, studies options, and then makes recommendations for
implementation to the area’s transit agency, Portland TriMet, said
TriMet spokeswoman Mary Fetsch.
But Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates, who sits on the MTC board,
along with the boards of the Association of Bay Area Governments and
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, thinks a regional transit
agency won’t be enough. “It needs to include land use,” he said. “In an
ideal world, one body would encompass both.” That way, the agency could
analyze and recommend developments that slow suburban sprawl and
transit options that help fight global warming.
As it stands, the best Kaplan and other opponents of BART’s plans
can hope for is to convince an agency that is helping pay for the
airport connector to change its mind. For example, the Port of Oakland,
which owns and operates the airport, is proposing to spend $44 million
on the tramway. BART needs the port’s money to make the project pencil
out. But if Kaplan and Councilwoman Nancy Nadel, who also
staunchly opposes the tramway, can convince a majority of the council
to oppose it, it would pressure the commission to change course.
But that could leave us with what we have now — AirBART, a
rinky-dink airport shuttle service that is vulnerable to bad traffic
and inconvenient for families with small children. Which is another
reason for why we need a regional agency that can determine the best
transit solutions and make the right decisions.
Targeting Monica Ung
The office of City Attorney John Russo has launched a fraud
investigation into NBC General Contractors and its owner Monica
Ung. As the Express reported, the Alameda County District
Attorney’s Office has charged Ung with 48 felonies for allegedly
ripping off her employees on public works projects and then lying to
public agencies about it, including the City of Oakland (see, “Monica’s
Victims,” 8/26/09).
Vicki Laden, a supervising deputy city attorney who handles
labor matters in Russo’s office, said she began the investigation after
reading the article, which she described as “alarming.” “We moved on it
immediately,” she said. She said she already has uncovered evidence
that Ung and NBC defrauded workers on the city-financed Fox Court
Apartments in Oakland’s Uptown district. As a result, Laden said she
requested that the city withhold final payment to general contractor
J.H. Fitzmaurice, which employed NBC as a subcontractor.
Laden said she has not yet uncovered evidence that NBC and Ung
engaged in fraud in the 81st Avenue Library project in East Oakland.
NBC is the general contractor on that project. Laden said her office
hopes to interview NBC employees who have worked at the library and is
encouraging them to come forward.
Ellyn Moscowitz, an attorney representing several ex-NBC
workers, said she also has been contacted recently by the Peralta
Community College District. Peralta officials told this newspaper that
they had uncovered no evidence that Ung and NBC had defrauded workers
on projects at Laney College and the College of Alameda, but their
investigation was superficial. In fact, several public agencies,
including Peralta and the City of Oakland, conducted only cursory
reviews of NBC’s practices after Ung was arrested. Their failures
apparently violated a state law that penalizes agencies that knew or
should have known that their contractors were defrauding workers.
Perata Works for Prison Guards
Ex-State Senator Don Perata, who is running for mayor of
Oakland, has been also working as a “consultant” for the state’s
powerful prison guards’ union, the California Correctional Peace
Officers’ Association. According to campaign finance reports, a union
committee paid Perata at least $40,000 earlier this year. The committee
also paid Perata’s close friend and advisor Sandra Polka more
than $40,000, plus $100,000 to a committee she helped operate. In
addition, the committee cut a $50,000 check earlier this year to an
Alameda-based nonprofit for which Perata is president of the board of
directors.
It’s unclear exactly what Perata has done for the prison guards’
union to earn such lucrative payments. According to Sacramento sources,
the union was not heavily involved this summer in the fight over the
governor’s prison reform plan and the attempt to lessen the state’s
inmate population. Nonetheless, Perata’s involvement with the group
won’t go over well with progressive Oakland voters because the union
has a long history of supporting prison building and the
prison-industrial complex.
