Oakland Airport Connector _8-25-10_

Document Sample
Oakland Airport Connector _8-25-10_ Powered By Docstoc
					                MTI Working Paper

                 Research Project 2503
Collaborative Funding to Facilitate Airport Ground Access



               Case Study Report
  BART - Oakland Airport Connector



                       Author(s)
                     Geoff Gosling
                     Wenbin Wei
                    Dennis Freeman




                          8-24-10


                        DRAFT




                      a publication of the
               Mineta Transportation Institute
  College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192-0219
Created by Congress in 1991
ABSTRACT
This case study report documents the experience with collaborative funding of airport
ground access involved in the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) to BART Automated
Guide way Transit Project. The OAC was developed to ease congestion and provide a
seamless transit option from the Coliseum Station to the Oakland International Airport.
The project was ready to be developed in 2009 and was waiting for a final Federal
American Reinvestment Recovery Act Grant to seal the funding package. Local
neighborhood and agency resistance filed a formal complaint to the Federal Transit
Administration claiming a Title IV Civil Rights argument that BART did not conduct a
service equity analysis studying the potential discriminatory impact of increased OAC
fares on minority and low-income passengers. BART was denied Federal ARRA funding
and the project was delayed. BART complied with FTA demands for a service equity
study and a public participation plan which found increased OAC fares did not produce
significant adverse impacts on minority and low-income passengers. BART has recently
recreated a complex funding package including 12 different funding sources.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The case study documented in this report has been prepared as part of the Mineta
Transportation Institute Research Project Collaborative Funding to Facilitate Airport
Ground Access. The objectives of the research project include examining and
documenting past experience with collaborative funding of airport ground access
projects and the use of different funding sources to facilitate interconnectivity between
transportation modes in order to improve airport ground access.

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the sponsors of the research, the
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and the Mineta
Transportation Institute (MTI). In addition we wish to acknowledge the assistance of …
in undertaking the case study.
                                                              i


TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION                                                  1

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES                                          5

INCREASED COST                                                7

ORIGINAL FUNDING PACKAGE                                      7

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE                                         7

SERVICE EQUITY STUDY                                          8

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (PPP)                               9

EXECUTIVE STRATEGY AND FUNDING STRATEGY                       9

OAC COST                                                     10

OAC FUNDING                                                  10

REFERENCE LIST                                               13




                           Mineta Transportation Institute
ii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proposed OAC Connector................................................................................ 4




                                     Mineta Transportation Institute
                                                                                                                  iii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. OAC Alternatives and Cost ............................................................................... 6

Table 2. OAC Alternatives Operating and Maintenance Costs........................................ 6

Table 3. OAC Updated Project Construction Costs ....................................................... 10

Table 4. OAC Updated Financing Cost ......................................................................... 10

Table 5. OAK Updated Funding .................................................................................... 11




                                     Mineta Transportation Institute
iv




     Mineta Transportation Institute
                                                                                        1
                                    Draft <08/24/10>


INTRODUCTION
The Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) has been planned since the early 1970’s in an
effort to reduce automobile congestion in the Bay Area. The current AirBART bus
service transports passengers from the Oakland Coliseum BART Station to Oakland
International airport (OAK). There is a need for an improved ground access transit
connection from BART to OAK due to confusion between BART train transfers to
AirBART and increased station congestion during Coliseum events. BART trains enter
the station in the upper level while AirBART buses are located at the bottom level
(BART 2010c).

BART studied three main alternatives to enhance the connection between the Airport
Coliseum Station and the Airport: a no development alternative, a Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) alternative, and an automated guideway track (AGT). The no development
alternative would allow AirBART to continue operating with minor improvements. The
BRT alternative would enhance the bus service and create a dedicated bus lane at the
airport. The preferred alternative (AGT) would create an elevated track for a train
system.

The project had an original project cost of $522 million in 2009 and needed $70 million
from the Federal American Reinvestment Recovery Act (ARRA) to start development.
Local opposition filed a formal complaint to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
citing increased OAC fares would adversely affect minority and low-income passengers.
In early 2009, FTA found BART had not prepared a service equity study and would only
grant ARRA funds if BART conducted service equity studies and public participation
plans by September 2009. BART did not have sufficient time to produce the requested
documents and the ARRA funds were dispersed to other regional transit agencies and
projects. In response to the funding shortfall, BART conducted a service equity analysis,
a public participation plan and an executive summary to change the OAC funding
package. The service equity analysis found proposed OAC fare increases from $3.00 to
$4.50 and $6.00 produced no significant adverse impacts to minority or low-income
passengers. The $1.50 and $2.00 fare increases produced slight impacts to minority
and low-income passengers but did the impacts were not significant enough to be
considered discriminatory. To communicate to the public, government agencies and
involved stakeholders about OAC project details and concerns, BART conducted over
40 meetings in various locations in the Bay Area. Concerns about project alternatives,
OAC fares, project cost and funding allocations were addressed. To rejuvenate the
project, BART’s Board of Directors developed a new funding package for the OAC
project involving 12 different funding sources. Local and regional funding contributed
$274.6 million, state funding will contribute $78.90, federal funding will contribute $25
million, and BART has requested a loan for $105.7 million. The funding sources
currently have different levels of commitment. There are 6 committed sources, 4
pending sources, 2 programmed sources, and 1 requested source. In total, BART has
accumulated $484.20 million in committed, programmed, pending, and requested
funding sources.




                             Mineta Transportation Institute
    Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
2                 Draft <08/25/10>




            Mineta Transportation Institute
                   Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
                                 Draft <08/25/10>                                      3



Passengers and employees currently can ride the AirBART bus service from the BART
Coliseum Station to Oakland International Airport (OAK). In 2008, AirBART transported
85,000 passengers per month and 2,833 passengers per day. AirBART one-way travel
time is 12-30 minutes. The Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) is proposed to replace the
AirBART System. The OAC is an automated guided transit (AGT) line that will provide
reliable and frequent service to the airport (BART 2010c).

Travel time by OAC from the Coliseum station to the OAK station is estimated to be 15
minutes. Trains will depart for the airport every 4 minutes. By 2020, the OAC is
projected to transport 10,000 passengers daily (BART 2010c).

The OAC will be run on an elevated guideway and will follow Hegenberger Road and
continue south of Doolittle Drive on Airport property. The line would continue between
Airport Drive and Lew F. Galbraith Golf Course. After the Golf Course, the line would
end at the new airport terminal. The proposed OAC line will be located north of the
Coliseum BART station and Columbia Gardens and west of I-880 between
Hegenberger Road and 98th avenue (BART 2010). The OAC will have two terminal end
stops. One stop will be located at OAK and one stop at the Coliseum BART Station. The
proposed project does not include intermediate stops at the Hegenberger and Doolittle
intersections but the project allows for a future station to be developed at a later time
(BART 2010c). The City of Oakland requested BART to develop intermediate stations
along the OAC route to economically enhance the Hegenberger Corridor. The stops
would have been located at Hegenberger and 98 th Avenue and the northwest corner of
Hegenberger I-880 exit. Figure 1 below displays the planned route.




                             Mineta Transportation Institute
                    Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
4                                 Draft <08/25/10>

Figure 1. Proposed OAC Connector




Source: BART 2002




                            Mineta Transportation Institute
                   Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
                                 Draft <08/25/10>                                      5


PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
BART produced a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) detailing 3 alternatives to
the OAC project: No action alternative, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, and an AGT
with a dedicated elevated guideway. The no action alternative would allow the AirBART
to continue serivce. The BRT system would provide service through a quality transfer
between BART, the bus, traffic light signaling along the route, and a dedicate bus lane
at the airport (FEIR 2002). The AGT system had 4 different design alterations.
Alternative (A) proposed an alignment west of Hegenberger Road North of I-880 with
two terminal end stations. Alternative (B) proposed two end stations with an alignment
east of Airport Drive south of Air Cargo Road entering OAK from the east. Alternative
(C) proposed two end terminal stops and two intermediate stops aligning along
Hegenberger Road north of I-880. Alternative (D) proposed two end terminal stops and
two intermediate stops aligning east of Airport Drive south of Air Cargo Road entering
OAK from the east.

The BRT plan was proposed to BART in May 1999 by TransForm, an agency focusing
on public transportation and pedestrian orientated cities in the Bay Area. TransForm
was concerned about the total project cost of the OAC and expensive $12 round trip
fares for low income and minority passengers and employees (Transform 2010; White
2010). Several other agencies including the Oakland City Council Public Works
Committee, public advocates Genesis and Urban Habitat shared similar sentiments that
future OAC fares were too expensive. Collectively, the agencies felt the BRT alternative
would lower development costs and create affordable transit fares (Public Advocates).

Table 1 below provides the cost of each alternative from the 2002 FEIR. Table 2 below
provides the Operating and Maintenance cost of the alternatives in 2001 dollars. The
four AGT alternatives had an estimated cost range of $204 million to $232 million in
2001. Alternative (D) would cost $26 million more than the basic two-station alternative
(A) in 2001.




                            Mineta Transportation Institute
                      Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
6                                   Draft <08/25/10>



Table 1. OAC Alternatives and Cost

            Capital Costs of Alternatives (2001 Dollars in Millions)

Alternative                          Detail                         Capital Cost

No Action      Expand AirBART to transport current passengers                 $0.4

BRT            Better bus service, minimal capital costs                     $30.2

AGT (A)        2 stations                                                  $204.0

AGT (B)        2 stations – alternative route                              $206.6

AGT (C)        4 stations (preferred alternative)                          $229.6

AGT (D)        4 stations alternative route                                $232.2

Source: Table adapted from BART 2002. BART-Oakland International Airport
connector: final environmental impact report. San Francisco, Calif., November.


Table 2. OAC Alternatives Operating and Maintenance Costs

    Operating and Maintenance Costs for Alternatives (2000 Dollars in Millions)

Alternative                                Detail                           Annual Cost

No Action        8 peak operating vehicles: 40’ standard buses                       $2.0

Quality Bus      9 peak operating vehicles: 60' articulated buses                    $2.4

AGT (A)          4, 2-car trains in peak: 2 stations                                 $7.3

AGT (C)          4, 2-car trains in peak: 4 stations (prefered)                      $7.7

Source: Table adapted from BART 2002. BART-Oakland International Airport
connector: final environmental impact report. San Francisco, Calif., November.




                                Mineta Transportation Institute
                   Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
                                 Draft <08/25/10>                                    7


INCREASED COST
In 1998, the proposed AGT had a cost of $130 million. The cost for the basic 2 stop
AGT alternative (A) increased to $204 million in 2001. The 1998 $130 million AGT
design assumed a smaller, narrower, and lighter system (BART 2002). In April 2001,
Metropolitan Transportation Commission adopted the Regional Transportation
Enhancement Policy (RTEP) with a four station $232 million OAC project. BART’s 2002
EIR included the $232 million, 4 stop OAC (White 2010). In April 2009, the project cost
had risen to $522 million and the two intermediate stops in the Hegenberger corridor
were removed (White 2010). One of the original selling points to develop a four stop
OAC was to bring economic benefits to the Hegenberger Corridor. Local residents and
supporting advocates were upset about the removal of the two Hegenberger stops and
prepared environmental justice and social equity arguments against BART.

ORIGINAL FUNDING PACKAGE
BART assembled a complex funding package from a variety of local, regional, state,
and federal sources. The original funding package included funding from Alameda
County Transportation Improvement Act (ACTIA) Measure B in 2000, Port of Oakland,
California Transportation Commission (CTC), State Transportation Improvement Plan
(STIP), regional bridge tolls, and Federal American Reinvestment Recovery Act (ARRA)
funds (FEIR 2002). In 2009, BART had assembled a funding package totaling to $452
million. The project cost was $522 million and BART was waiting to receive a Federal
American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Grant of $70 million to cover the final
cost of the project. BART needed $70 million from the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) to complete funding for the OAC but discovered local resistance to the project
citing environmental justice issues which ultimately halted ARRA Funding.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
In June 2009, Urban Habitat, at a Metropolitan Transportation Commission meeting
stated BART had not created a required service equity analysis of the OAC project.
BART responded by saying they prepared a Trienniel report but did not mention a
service equity report. In response to BART not developing a service equity analysis of
the OAC project, in September 2009, Public Advocates, Genesis, Urban Habitat, and
TransForm filed a civil rights complaint under Title VI to FTA stating BART did not
comply with the Civil Rights Act. The advocates claimed OAC transit fares ($6 one way)
were too expensive for low income passengers and the project would not bring
economic benefits to the Hegenberger Corridor and nearby neighborhoods (White
2010).

BART responded by stating the OAC would not adversely impact the Hegenberger
neighborhoods. If the OAC does have an adverse impact on low income and minority
communities, BART would mitigate the impacts. BART claimed the OAC would benefit
the Hegenberger corridor neighborhoods by reducing traffic, noise, and pollution.
Transit time from the Coliseum Station to the Airport Station would be reduced from 10
minutes by AirBART to 4.5 minutes by OAC (BART 2010). Regarding transit fares,


                            Mineta Transportation Institute
                   Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
8                                Draft <08/25/10>

BART stated the $6 one-way fare cost would affect some low income and minority
communities. BART stated the majority of potential OAC riders (95.7%) are business,
leisure, or student travelers and 4.3% are low income minority passengers. BART
acknowledged some of the low income and minority passengers would be airport
employees who live north of the BART station. BART stated employees would not be
affected by the price increase because employee public transit fares are subsidized by
pre tax benefits (BART 2010).

In early 2010, BART received a letter from Peter Rogoff the FTA Administrator denying
BART the $70 million economic stimulus funds. The FTA decided BART was not under
compliance with Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964. The FTA received a formal complaint
in September 2009, which stated BART failed to complete a service equity analysis for
the OAC project. FTA confirmed BART’s failure to complete a service equity analysis
through a project review. FTA decided BART had until September 2010 to revise their
Final Environmental Impact Report and resolve the formal equity complaint.
Unfortunately, the FTA decided BART did not have enough time to comply with Title VI
by September 30 and the $70 million was dispersed towards other Bay Area transit
agencies (Rogoff 2010).

BART board president James Fang said,

      “For all intents and purposes, I think the project is dead. I am saddened
      and disappointed by the loss of 2,500 and 5,000 jobs this project would
      create, and by the improved service that our riders will not get.”

The $70 million in economic stimulus money went to 19 public transit operators in the
Bay Area to fix, upgrade buses and light rail equipment. Among some of the transit
operators who will be receiving the share of the economic stimulus money are Alameda
Contra Costa County (ACTransit), Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (SCVTA), and
Caltrain (Cuff 2010). Even though BART did not receive ARRA funding, the agency still
performed the required service equity study to determine if the OAC project negatively
impacted minority and low-income passengers.

SERVICE EQUITY STUDY
In response to the denial of $70 million ARRA funds, BART conducted a service equity
study to determine whether the increased OAC fares would adversely impact minority
and low-income passengers. The study concluded increasing fares from AirBART to
OAC would not result negatively impact lower-income and minority passengers and
communities. The current AirBART one-way fare is $3.00. The proposed OAC project
would increase fares to $4.50 or $6.00. The study found minorities and lower-income
passengers would pay a slightly higher percentage compared to non-minority and non-
low income passengers if one-way fares were increased from $3.00 to $4.50 or $6.00.

Increasing one-way fares from $3.00 to $4.50 would increase fares by 24.1% for all
passengers within the study area. For minority passengers, the average fare increase
would be 24.4% and for non-minority passengers, the fare increase would be 23.9%.
Minority passengers would experience a 0.5% fare increase compared to non-minority


                            Mineta Transportation Institute
                   Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
                                 Draft <08/25/10>                                     9


passengers. Low-income passengers would experience a 24.7% increase in fares and
non-low income passengers would experience a 24% increase in fares. Low-income
passengers would experience a 0.7% increase in prices compared to non-low income
passengers.

The proposed $6.00 potential fare increase would increase fares by 48.3% for all
passengers within the study area. Minority passengers would experience a 48.8%
increase in fares and non-minority passengers would experience 47.8% increase in
fares. Minority passengers would experience a 1% increase in fares compared to non-
minority passengers. Low-income passengers would experience a 49.4% increase in
fares and non-low-income passengers would experience a 48% increase in fares. Low-
income passengers would experience a 1.4% increase in fares compared to non-low
income passengers (HDR 2010).

The study determined minority and low-income passengers would experience a slightly
higher percentage in fares compared to non-minority and non low-income passengers.
The slight percentage increase in fares is not disproportionate for low-income and
minority passengers and does not constitute discrimination.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (PPP)
To demonstrate BART communicated with the local community and government
agencies, the agency conducted 21 public hearings in Oakland, 4 public hearings
before the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, 5 hearings before
MTC, 4 hearings before BART’s Board of Directors, 3 hearings before Port of Oakland,
and 3 hearings before Oakland City Council between February 2009 and May 2010,

The meetings covered the history of the project, described the benefits of the OAC, and
the funding status of the project. Residents of the community expressed concern about
the elimination of the two OAC intermediate stations. BART responded by saying the
two intermediate stations at Edgewater drive and Doolittle drive were studied in the
2002 FEIR, but were not implemented because the City of Oakland was responsible to
fund the design and construction of the stations. BART stated the City of Oakland
decided to allow Wal-Mart to develop near the Edgewater intermediate station, which
relocated BART’s AGT alignment. BART stated the Doolittle station could still be
developed in the future. Residents also expressed concern about the BRT alternative
and why it was not chosen over the AGT alternative. BART staff responded by stating
the BRT was studied heavily in the 2002 FEIR and it was determined the BRT would be
slower and less reliable than the AGT which has a 99.5% on-time rate (BART 2010b).

EXECUTIVE STRATEGY AND FUNDING STRATEGY
In response to the funding shortfall of the original funding plan, BART’s Board of
Directors approved a revision of the funding plan and awarded a design build contract to
construct the project and a contract to operate and maintain the OAC project. The
design build contract number is 01ZK-110 and the operation and maintenance contact
number is 01ZK-120. The maintenance and operation award will last 20 years. BART’s
Board awarded the contracts to Flat Iron Construction Corporation and Parsons


                            Mineta Transportation Institute
                         Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
10                                     Draft <08/25/10>

Corporation for the design-build contract and JV Construction and Dopelmayr Cable Car
Inc. The awards are contingent on the amount of funds BART receives from the Federal
Transit Administration Small Starts grant. Small starts grants funds for new fixed guide
way transit projects, projects to improve bus corridors, and transit extensions. Agencies
may only request less than $75 million from Small Starts and the total project cost must
be less than $250 million (FTA 2010). The contract awards will be awarded if BART
receives sufficient funding from the Small Starts Grant (BART 2010a).

OAC COST
The total project cost for the OAC project is $484 million. The total project construction
and financing costs are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3. OAC Updated Project Construction Costs

Development and Construction Costs                           Millions

BART costs spent and reimbursed to date                            $39.2

Capital construction and civil cost                               $363.9

Delivery and construction contingency                              $73.0

Total development and construction costs                          $476.1

Source: Table from BART 2010a.


Table 4. OAC Updated Financing Cost

Financing Costs                                              Millions

TIFIA Interest expense                                              $0.9

Upfront financing costs and fees                                    $5.4

Annual rating agency fees                                           $0.1

Reserves for other financing costs                                  $1.5

Total financing costs                                               $8.0

Source: Table adapted from BART 2010a



OAC FUNDING
BART’s new funding plan for the OAC project includes a total of 12 different funding
sources. There are 5 local sources, 6 state sources, and 1 federal source contributing to


                                      Mineta Transportation Institute
                      Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
                                    Draft <08/25/10>                                      11


the project. Out of the 12 funding sources, 6 are committed, 4 are pending, 2 are
programmed, and 1 is being requested. Table 5 presents the local, regional, state, and
federal funding sources, amount funded and the status of the funds.

The Port of Oakland is requesting the FTA approve the use of Passenger Facility
Charges (PFC) ($27.8 million). If the FTA approves the use PFCs, the Port of Oakland
would deliver the funds during the first construction phase of the project and during the
first two years of operational service. If the FTA denies the use of PFCs, the OAC
construction schedule would not keep pace with development and BART would have to
borrow more funds.


Table 5. OAK Updated Funding
                           OAC Funding Sources Status and Use (in millions)
                                                                    Debt      Amount
Local                   State                         Federal       Draws     Millions   Status
Alameda County
Transportation
Improvement Agency
(ACTIA) Measure B                                                              $89.10    Committed
Port of Oakland PFC                                                            $29.30    Pending
Regional Measure 1
(1988) Bridge Toll                                                             $31.00    Committed
Regional Measure 2
(2004) Bridge Toll                                                            $115.20    Committed
BART SFO Reserve
Account                                                                        $10.00    Pending
                        State Transportation
                        Improvement Program
                        (STIP)                                                 $20.70    Committed
                        Corridor Movement
                        Improvement Account
                        (CMIA)/ Regional
                        Transportation
                        Improvement Plan (RTIP)
                        Funding Exchange                                       $10.00    Programmed
                        State Highway Operation
                        and Protection Program
                        (SHOPP)/ (RTIP) Funding
                        Exchange                                               $10.00    Programmed
                        Metropolitan Transportation
                        Commission (MTC) - State
                        Local Partnership Program
                        (SLPP) Proposition 18                                  $20.00    Committed
                        PTMISEA Proposition 18                                 $12.80    Committed
                        High Speed Passenger
                        Train Bond                                              $5.40    Pending




                                Mineta Transportation Institute
                 Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
12                             Draft <08/25/10>

                                           Federal Transit
                                           Administration
                                           (FTA) Small
                                           Starts                       $25.00   Pending
                                                             Debt
                                                             Draws
                                                             TIFIA     $105.70   Requested
                                                             Total
                                                             Funding   $484.20

Source: Table adapted from BART 2010a




                         Mineta Transportation Institute
                   Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
                                 Draft <08/25/10>                                   13



REFERENCE LIST


BART. 2002. BART-Oakland International Airport connector: final environmental impact
     report. San Francisco, Calif., November.
BART. 2010a. Executive Decision Document. http://www.bart.gov/docs/oac/07-22-
     10%20Oakland%20Airport%20Executive%20Decision%20Document.pdf
     (accessed August 16, 2010).
BART. 2010b. Oakland Airport Connector Public Participation Summary Report.
     http://www.bart.gov/docs/oac/OAC%20PPP%20Summary%20Report.pdf
     (accessed August 16, 2010).
BART. 2010c. Oakland Airport Connector.
     http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/oac/index.aspx (accessed August 14, 2010).

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2010. Title Vi, Environmental Justice, and Limited
      English Proficiency Analysis of Proposed Service and Fare Changes. San
      Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Project: Oakland Airport Connector Project
      (January). www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Newequityquestions.doc (accessed
      March 8, 2010).

Bay City News. 2010. FTA Denies BART $70 in Stimulus Funds for Airport Connector.
      KTVU. http://www.ktvu.com/news/22552529/detail.html (accessed March 8,
      2010).

Cuff, Denis. 2010. BART’s $70 million Loss in Airport Connector Funds is Boon for
       Transit Agencies. Contra Costa Times (February).
       http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14420890?nclick_check=1
       (accessed March 11, 2010).
FTA. 2010. Small Starts.
      http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_222.html
      (accessed August 16, 2010).
HDR. 2010. Service and Fare Change Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Airport
      Connector Project. July.
      http://www.bart.gov/docs/oac/Final%20OAC%20Equity%20Analysis%20-
      %20July%2013%202010.pdf (accessed August 16, 2010).

Kim, Lilian. 2010. Feds Say no to BART’s Oakland Airport Extension. KGO-TV/DT.
       http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7275279
       (accessed March 8, 2010).




                            Mineta Transportation Institute
                   Case Study: <BART-Oakland Airport Connector>
14                               Draft <08/25/10>

Public Advocates. Chronology of Stimulus Funding for BART Oakland Airport Project.
       www.publicadvocates.org/news/.../BART_OAC_Chronology_FINAL.pdf
       (accessed March 10, 2010).

Rogoff, Peter. 2010. Letter to Steve Heminger and Dorothy Dugger Regarding Oakland
      Airport Connector. US Department of Transportation Federal Transit
      Administration (February). http://www.scribd.com/doc/26797449/Fta-Feb-12-
      2010-Bart-Mtc-Letter (accessed March 9, 2010).

Transbay Blog. 2010. Complaint Filed with the FTA Against the OAC.
      http://transbayblog.com/2009/09/04/complaint-filed-with-the-fta-against-the-oac/
      (accessed March 11, 2010).
Transform. 2010. About Us. http://www.transformca.org/about-us (accessed August 13,
      2010).

White, Knox John. About the Oakland Airport Connector. TransForm.
       http://transformca.org/campaign/oac/why-oac-no-longer-deserves-our-support
       (accessed march 11, 2010).




                            Mineta Transportation Institute

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:11/19/2011
language:English
pages:22