It’s been one year since Oakland’s AirBART “people-mover” connector to the airport opened, and so far some good news on the cost front. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that ridership is 37 percent higher than projected, and the $6 one-way fare is covering all operating costs.
But Matier & Ross in the Chronicle also noted today that the revenue won’t repay the capital costs to build the system. Those costs totaled $384 million from federal and state sources, as well as local transportation funds. BART also spent $111 million from sales tax revenue bonds, financed by taxpayers in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Still, having farebox revenue cover the full operating cost is pretty much unheard-of with rail projects. And that was the goal of transportation equity advocates who encouraged BART to set the fare so high. They didn’t want AirBART sucking in operating funds from other projects. So BART should be applauded for having a fare that covers these costs and also isn’t scaring away riders.
There’s a lot to like about AirBART, despite my previous criticism of the high fare and decision to make it an elevated rail line rather than a bus-only lane. Having now ridden it, I still wouldn’t take my whole family on it, given the cost, but I am happy to ride it as a solo business traveler.
As you can see in the photo below, the system seamlessly integrates with the BART platform, eliminating the unpleasant wait at street level for the old bus.
The seamless approach to the AirBART station from the Oakland BART ramp.
But the slow cable car feature is unfortunate. You can see the cable in the photo below. It limits the ride to 23 miles per hour and features a strange midway interruption as the train cars switch to a new cable for the final ride into the airport.
The cable that keeps the AirBART ride slow and interrupted.
But on the plus side, it’s a smooth ride and it’s nice to be elevated above street level. The views are definitely pleasant.
The bottom line: it’s a nice ride but at a steep price. As long as ridership is covering operating costs, complaints should be minimized. But it will remain an open question: had that money been used to build a speedy bus-only lane service, would ridership be even higher, providing more value to more people? And could the leftover capital funds have been used to improve rail service elsewhere in a more cost-effective manner?
We’ll never know, but in the meantime, the airport and BART have a very visible symbol of luxury transit. And at least for now, it’s paying for itself.
Back in 2009, BART officials grappled with a pivotal decision about how to connect BART to the Oakland Airport. Among the options to improve the unpleasant and slow “AirBART” bus shuttle: a “people-mover” automated train, riding on an elevated track to the airport, and a much less expensive bus-only lane down the middle of Hegenberger Road. Transit advocates commissioned a study showing that the “RapidBART” bus option (as they called it) along Hegenberger was faster, would generate more riders, and would be 1/6 of the price to build.
Needless to say, they lost that battle in favor of the more glamorous elevated train, with federal stimulus dollars on the table and a crushing recession motivating the need to create skilled jobs.
AirBART airport station under construction in April.
But the battle then shifted to the cost of the ride. These same advocates didn’t want a below-cost fare that would then necessitate that all BART riders subsidize the more expensive people-mover option. They appear to have won that battle. AirBART will cost $6 a ride, each way.
I live in the East Bay and often take AirBART to the airport. In fact, my family just rode it on Saturday. The current fare is $3 on a rickety bus that takes forever. I’ve spent many a cold night waiting 20 minutes for AirBART, then another 15 minutes on the BART platform for a train. So I’d love a faster, more regular connection.
But $6 a ride? For my family of five, $30 just for the AirBART portion alone starts to make driving and parking — or a taxi — look a lot more sensible. Now maybe business or solo travelers are the target market, but even there, $12 roundtrip on top of the BART fare sounds steep. A taxi might even be competitive.
All I (and I assume most people as well) really want from the connection is a faster, more regular service. The 23 mph cable car they’ve built for the AirBART train is unlikely to provide that value, especially at that fare. Perhaps a cheaper, bus-only lane connection would have been the best way to go after all.
